Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 25

< May 24	May 26 >

May 25 edit

Template:Copy edit

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 section.

The result of the discussion was replace and redirect. I see one unequivocal keep, but the rest of the contributors agree it should not be used in article space. The suggestion to replace seems to have some support (although it was made later than a lot of the contributors here weighed in, it doesn't look like they'd have a big problem with doing so). So I'm going to replace per Plasticspork's suggestion and redirect to {{copypaste}} per OlEnglish's suggestion (this is kind of an arbitrary choice, feel free to redirect it somewhere else if there's a better target). If anyone disapproves of this, let me know and we'll work something out. delldot ∇. 16:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template used in one article— Louis-Auguste Bisson —where the content does not appear to be copied from the linked text. Used on a few talk pages. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem rather inutile, especially for a template with a common word like "copy". Maybe a redirect to something like {{copypaste}} or {{duplicate}} would put it to better use. Of course then someone would have to go and subst the 10 or so talk page uses though. -- œ ^™ 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and document If a source is out of copyright, and were an encyclopedia, like say EB1911, it would seem useful to use a standardized form in the references list. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but possibly restrict to talk pages. I'm slightly uncomfortable about this being used in articles, where we really shouldn't be copying text from other sources in most cases - except when the source is in the public domain, and even then it's usually better if we rewrite it. The talk page use seems entirely benign, however, and seems like a useful way of moving a discussion from one talk page to another. Robofish (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For talk page discussions, we have {{Relevant discussion}}, {{Discussion at}} and {{Discussion moved}}. For articles, where content is copied from public domain sources, we have a number of attribution templates such as {{1911}} for EB1911. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very surprised if we had attribution templates for every and all public domain sources. I think that would be an enormous amount of templates to keep around. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} like this on talk pages. The usage in the article should be removed. The name of this template is somewhat confusing, and it isn't widely used. Once it is replaced, I would support redirection or deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} per Plastikspork's suggestion. Airplaneman ✈ 16:02, 6 June 2010 (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 section.

Template:Section:Book reference after author edit

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete after replacement, no obvious need for a variation in format Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Section:Book reference after author (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{cite book}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this has quite a few uses.. Is there a bot that goes and subst's all the uses first before it gets deleted? I don't think a simple redirect to citebook would effectively take care of some of the transclusions, it looks like it's being used in the middle of the references of a couple articles, won't deleting or redirecting it corrupt these references? -- œ ^™ 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't just delete templates and leave broken markup. If the consensus it to delete this, then it will be replaced with a good template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's great if you intend to do the work in replacing the various templates you flagged for TfD with an upgraded version of them, I didn't realize that's what your intentions are when you put them up for TfD. But for all other templates that go through here-and I'm just showing my ignorance of TfD process here, as I don't come here often-if consensus is for deletion, then shouldn't all its uses should be subst'd first? Could you explain if that is done manually or by a bot in cases where there are many transclusions? -- œ ^™ 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would fire up AWB and replace this with {{cite book}}, replacing parameters as needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:05, 29 May 2010 (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 section.

Template:Section:Chapter reference after author edit

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete after replacement, no obvious need for a variation in format Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Section:Chapter reference after author (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{cite book}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:11, 25 May 2010 (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 section.

Template:Cite press release v2 edit

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete as the differences appear to be minor, and no obvious reason for a fork Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite press release v2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Cite press release}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. the creator of the template (who's been missing since 2007) intended it to be a "fork of Template:Cite press release: this template will resemble the news template in format", Though I'm seeing little differences and it's only being used in 3 articles. I think a redirect would do fine here. -- œ ^™ 00:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't explain why it is a fork; I haven't examined the markup in depth, but there are no obvious differences. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:56, 26 May 2010 (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 section.

Template:Cleanup edit

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. There's no other way this is going to go; closed per WP:SNOW. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

too generic to be useful. Constantly misused where a more specific template should be used. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate for new additions, and slowly delete. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is used in thousands of pages so I don't think deletion is really an option. There needs to a generic cleanup tag to handle cases where the specific issue does not exist. The tag should not be used without some explanation on the talk page, but that can be said about several cleanup tags. There is an assumption that the person adding the tag will read the documentation and do this, but any template has the potential for abuse.--RDBury (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Generic is its virtue. You can mark something without having to get into a whole lot of nitpicky bullshit hairsplitting.
How typically Wikipedia. Take something that's working just fine and blow it the fuck away. Classic.
Varlaam (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: for the reasons stated above. Wikipedia does have a tendency to specialize and differentiate to microscopic levels. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate or offer rationale(?) - I agree with the nom and Stifle, it's far too generic as it is really. However... On other non-Wikimedia Wiki's I've seen templates like this used where a rationale parameter is offered to the tagger to explain what exactly needs cleaning up. Though thinking about it rationales needn't be limited to the {{cleanup}} tag. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, of course it would be better if people could say what's the problem. However, not everyone knows all those tags, so this tag makes it easier to say at least that there's some certain problem, without specifying it. So, actually it should be deleted, but currently I don't think that can be done realistically. Maybe something like stub sorting could be started, where people take a look at the articles and then try to give it better tags. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I see what you're saying, stub sorting for maintenance tags or "tag sorting" as it were, would just increase 'pedian workload unnecessarily IMO. If you're not sure what tag you should use you shouldn't be the tagging user. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Pretty much for the reasons above. There's way too many generic issues on this site to just delete this anyway. - Chevellefan11 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tidy all articles tagged with this, remove the template, and delete as unused. Then marvel at the newly-formed icicles dangling from the gates of Stygia. Alternatively, keep until it's no longer useful. --DeLarge (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can understand the reasons for deletion, but I think that it allows users to flag something up that has general problems, without having to go through the list of templates and specify a list of them. Often these problems are quite obvious, and really just need work to be put in. I think if the template were deleted, it would firstly be quite time consuming to flag up all of the areas where this template is used with more specific ones, and may also discourage people from flagging up problem areas - now, it is simply a matter of saying 'this needs some work, lets put a template on'. I think, however, people should be encouraged to either use a more specific template, or state exactly what the problems are somewhere (edit summary/talk page/section on template), but I would rather keep both options open to people. Fourth ventricle (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The fact that users are forced to know and use wikimarkup to tag bad sections or entire pages is bad enough. Requiring that they know some esoteric template name is unacceptable. {{cleanup}} is fine; if more neurotic editors want to go around sub-specifying, more power to them. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - flawed, but better than nothing. If a user isn't familiar with our vast array of templates and doesn't know exactly which one to use on a problematic article, I'd rather they used this one than left it as it is. It can always be replaced with a better template by a more knowledgeable user. As long as this template isn't hanging on articles for years, I don't have a problem with it. Robofish (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy to use and can always be replaced by a more-specific template, if appropriate. On pages with multiple issues, it might be better to have this than a series of templates flagging different issues, which can be offputting for editors. A space for an optional rationale to be added would be a bonus. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I pretty much concur with the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One cleanup or five other templates? And per McBride. I hate memorizing template names. —fetch ·comms 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per above comments. More templates just makes things harder.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all cleanup templates. I'm in the minority on this, but I don't think I've ever seen any cleanup template have any value whatsoever. They are placed there just to express displeasure with the state of the article; rarely do they ever lead to improvements. I've seen articles which have had this template for more than three years now. They're just an eyesore, not motivation for improvement — someone who wants to cleanup and can do so will just do so. I do agree that the genericness of the template is not a problem, though. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Is it really necessary to fix something that ain't broke? The reasoning here is that it isn't specific enough, and yet I see a vast majority of users who love randomly going through cleanup tagged articles and cleaning them up, regardless of subject. No need for specifics here. MobileSnail 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I echo the words of User:Varlaam at the top. Being generic can be a good thing. And it's been in use for this many years without any major issues, all of a sudden it's up for deletion now?? -- œ ^™ 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Oracleofottawa (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Generic can be a virtue. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Snow close. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 03:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's too widely used. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as nsaum75 says above, generic can be a virtue. Suggest early closure of this TfD per WP:SNOWBALL. -- The Anome (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Echoing the points above. - ηyχ αμς 08:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep dont see any reason for this template to be deleted.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2010 (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 section.

Template:Non-free-unsure edit

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free-unsure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created by Zsero (talk · contribs) in order to get around the deprecated {{Non-free unsure}} template. At best, this template should be replaced with {{Non-free fair use in}}. — ξ ^xplicit 06:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete why contribute to ambiguous copyright statuses? Just get a regular tag. —fetch ·comms 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:11, 26 May 2010 (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 section.

Template:County7 edit

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:County7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Countyrow}}. It was only being used on three pages, where I replaced it with the standard. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Speedy? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:09, 26 May 2010 (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 section.

Template:TPSRM edit

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete, but with no objection to reviving it if the admin resurfaces, or if it turns out it is of some use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TPSRM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template for WP:RM, in no instructions, thus unlikely to be used, but if used, it doesn't collaborate with the bot as there's no {{movereq}} in it. Furthermore, no documentation and it looks extremely complicated. The Evil IP address (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it doesn't look like it's being used much. Its creator (an admin) seems to be missing since 2007, and it looks like this isn't the first of his templates that have recently been put up for deletion. Not that I'm saying this user's templates should be kept, I just think it sucks that he's not available himself to speak up for the usefulness of his templates. It does seem like he put in a lot of work in creating them. -- œ ^™ 23:40, 25 May 2010 (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 section.