Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 13 February 15 >

February 14 edit

Template:Current U.K. Cabinet 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 Redirect as unused and redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current U.K. Cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

More or less a duplication of Template:Brown Cabinet. Philip Stevens (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would suggest making it a redirect then. If the government changes we can change the redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 10:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose In reality, Brown Cabinet looked as Current U.K. Cabinet does now and was unilaterally changed by User:Rutld001 to its current form which is extremely cluttered, hard to navigate and with only the slightest amount of order that I could give to it. I thought it might be possible to have a template showing all current and former members of Cabinet but it is simply unmanageable. Brown Cabinet should be returned to its former appearance (the one that Current U.K. Cabinet holds now) with only incumbent Cabinet ministers and not their predecessors. Then Current U.K. Cabinet should be deleted. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a bit pointless have two templates which do the same thing. --Hera1187 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concerns over the content of {{Brown Cabinet}} don't warrant creating a duplicate template for the same purpose. That other template is used and this one is not. So the appropriate solution is to keep the one that is used and fix whatever problems it may have. --RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 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:R 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 No consensus. Personally, I dislike the proliferation of different citation and footnoting templates, and don't care for this one in particular, but redundant templates in this area is a widely accepted practice so the usual deletion argument of redundancy has less force than it normally would. The centralized discussion clearly supported suspension of replacing existing citations with this template, but that is not the same as endorsing its deletion. (There is already a long-standing consensus not to arbitrarily switch out citation formats in existing articles, but no one takes that as an argument to delete any particular citation template.) So there is no clear policy or prior consensus to weight the arguments, and the division between keep and delete in the present discussion is too closely balanced to declare a consensus. RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per discussion at Wikipedia:VP/R#Suspend_replacing_of_ref_by_Template:r_in_citations. iBen 19:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not read the discussion to totally abandon it. Rather, I read it as suspending the use temporarily until there is agreement, but not to remove it when it is already in use. "Pages that link to "Template:R" " shows there are about 200 articles that currently use it. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close as Keep -- Whatever the outcome of the related discussion, the very existence of this discussion is messing up articles where the template is used. This applies for example to Malvern, Worcestershire, where the template has been used perhaps 50 times. This has recently reached GA-status, so that it is particularly annoying to have this done to it. I think this citation style was adopted because the article had so many references that it was becoming almost incomprehensible when open for editing. I strongly object to automatic mass replacement of templates without very side discussion, not only in technical areas, but in the article space of articles affected. I do not think that any one is actually suggesting mass replacement; after all, it would probably need largely to be done manually, but editors should be free to chose whichever citation method (and there are several in use) best suits their abilities and the nature of the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: Guild Wars 2 is totally messed up right now --Twilight 00:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep History of the Earth is totally messed up. Please close immediately. Crum375 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how that's relevant to whether or not the template should be deleted. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because you can't rationally discuss deleting a useful template, used throughout Wikipedia, while many articles are messed up. Crum375 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain the mechanics behind that one, please. By that logic, no high-use template can ever be discussed in relation to anything. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just <noinclude></noinclude> the deletion templates on the Template page, pro tem? TheresaWilson (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because that would prevent the very people using it from knowing about the discussion to stop using it. —Pathoschild 03:38:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
That may be, but this is still a discussion worth having (full disclosure: I favor the template's deletion). We need to find another way to bring about awareness of the discussion without botching articles. harej 03:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have <ref> and </ref>, which have worked without any trouble. This is the same thing as that, but done in an arbitrary template style. Nothing is improved; this is a redundant template. harej 03:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say close early as delete. Its use was already broadly disapproved of within the village pump RfC, so I don't see why it needs to be debated again, and having the TfD template on every instance of the template is a train wreck. No sense in foot-dragging: the community doesn't like its use, so we ought to man up and delete it already.--Father Goose (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think the template is less obtrusive to the article text when editing. More importantly, we clearly need a mechanism to highlight discussion about a template without messing up every page using it (e.g Malvern Water). A banner across the top of any page using the template would seem sensible, although I've no idea how to do this technically (bot?). As it stands, some editors will (reasonably) delete the template to keep their page readable. This is meant to be a deletion discussion, not an end-of-life notice. GyroMagician (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just adds an extra unnecessary level of template to the articles that obscures what its purpose is. Keith D (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after fixing the articles it was wrongly employed in; community consensus seems pretty clear from the discussion - this template is not acceptable for use in articles and never should have been mass added by its creators/few adopters, nor should it be allowed to remain. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tear down the bikeshed so people will stop arguing about it. The RfC showed pretty strong consensus to stop using this template. 22 vs only 3 that wanted to keep using it. Enough words have been wasted on this trivial matter. Gigs (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting, or removing it from current usage, was not what the RFC was about, though.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There's no reason to stop people from using this; if you don't want to use it yourself, that's fine. In addition, the tagging of the template has inadvertently vandalized all the articles that use it, which currently look absurd. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This happens to any template at TfD. What's your point? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Show me one example of a TfD where the notice link has caused numerous articles to be nearly unreadable, as this one has. Crum375 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin None of the "delete" comments, and not even the nominator, explain why this useful template, which reduces the clutter in edit mode from this: <ref name=X/> to this: {{r|X}}, a 50% reduction in visual clutter (from 12 clutter characters to 6), which reduces eye strain and greatly helps in the ability to edit for flow, and has no current substitute, is in any way harmful to the project and/or should be deleted. Crum375 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to drop to that sort of level, then none of the "keep" comments address the very sound points made in the original discussion, or move beyond that they find it useful without any real explanation of why. Saving six characters seems like a really, really stupid optimization to me. It puts more load on the server, and it puts more load on the editor - that's not worth saving six characters for. The template has no current substitute, because it needs none. It is seemingly a solution in search of a problem. If the points raised in the original discussion have any merit, there would appear to be a more than adequate case to suggest this template is not as harmless as it first looks. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reducing 50% of the clutter in edit mode in every article is extremely helpful to editors trying to edit for flow. It could be the difference between doing it, or giving up because of too much clutter. The "server load", which is trivial in this case, is no reason to reduce the quality of writing on Wikipedia. According to WP's top developer Brion Vibber, "Generally, you should not worry much about little things like templates and "server load" at a policy level. If they're expensive, we'll either fix it or restrict it at a technical level; that's our responsibility..."[1] Crum375 (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a reduction of six characters. That may or may not be 50%, but presenting it as such is misleading, and makes it appear a more substantial saving than it is. Convenience templates such as {{tl}} achieve significant simplification. {{r}}, not so much. If anything, it actually makes referencing more complicated. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Having tried pretty much all methods in my 4 years here, I am not aware of a more convenient referencing method than the {{r}} template. If there is one, please point me to it. As far as the "misleading" 50% saving, if I have (say) 100 repeated references in an article, using the old method it would add 100x12=1,200 characters of unneeded visual clutter in edit mode. If I use the new {{r}} method, the visual clutter is reduced to 100x6=600 characters, an elimination of 600 junk characters, half the clutter, and the remaining characters are simple unobtrusive double braces (not words and angle brackets which are more distracting). Based on my personal experience, this makes it much easier to edit for flow, and reduces eye strain. How is that misleading? Crum375 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's misleading because it makes it sound like a significant saving, when in actual fact it is not. It's a bit like saying that Heather Mills suffered a "50% reduction in feet". So far, your argument has been "You can't delete it because the deletion template screws it up" and "Hey, I find this useful", whereas very many sound reasons against using it have been presented, both here and at the Pump. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • For me visual clutter in edit mode is the largest impediment to editing for flow, to the point where it's nearly impossible to do so with a lot of references. This template reduces the visual clutter impediment by 50%, e.g. 600 characters of visually distracting junk removed for 100 references, a huge difference, which makes articles editable for flow (i.e. improves writing quality) and makes editing easier and more enjoyable. How is that misleading? What does it have to do with Heather Mills? The point is that I fail to see why we need to delete a super-useful template, which makes articles easier to edit for flow and therefore more readable. If someone doesn't like it, they don't need to use it. But why prevent people who benefit from it and like it from using it? What policy would such deletion be based on? Crum375 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Believe it or not, simply asserting that it's "super-useful" and "makes articles editable for flow" and "makes editing easier" doesn't magically make it so. It would qualify for deletion because it's redundant to the already-extant <ref> syntax. I can't see how the existing syntax is clutter yet this format is not. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Super-useful" is the end result, caused by reduction of 50% of the visual clutter in edit mode, which makes editing for flow much easier. In a typical case of 100 references, this template will eliminate half, or 600 characters, of the distracting junk characters visible in edit mode. This reduction of the clutter to one half makes the flow editing easier and therefore the writing quality better. It's not "redundant" to anything, since there is no other way I know to reduce the clutter by a half. If there is some other way to achieve the same 50% visual clutter reduction, please point me to it. Crum375 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I refer the honorable member to the answer I gave some hours ago. I draw your attention to the part where I say that merely repeating the same old line over and over will not under any circumstances magically make it true. The facts are these: it unnecessarily introduces confusion by having two citation systems in the same article; it is redundant to the existing syntax. Again, I'd like to know where you're getting the idea that <ref> is "clutter" and {{r}} is not, or is "less cluttered" (it's still a blob of text), and that articles are somehow not "editable for flow" (whatever that's supposed to mean) with the original syntax. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If you read my reply to you above, you'll see the answer to your question about the clutter reduction factor. It is <ref name=X> vs. {{r|X}}, or 12 characters vs. 6, or 50% reduction in visual clutter for the r template. If you don't know what "editing for flow" is, or why visual clutter is so distracting when doing it, then you need to get some experience editing articles. While at it, you'll realize we already have many citation styles in a typical article. The advantage of this method is that it cuts down on visual clutter to a near minimum. Crum375 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • (outdent) It hasn't changed the fact that it's six characters - the extra load placed on editors to figure out what the template is supposed to do and why it's suddenly shown up in an article on their watchlist seens rather more than the saving does for you. The table syntax has a bigger reduction, and lays out each row separately, making it genuinely easier. Also, please don't go around telling people they need "more experience editing articles". I was cutting my teeth on article editing back at a time when this discussion would have been one section in a monolithic page listing all the deletion discussions for the past week. The idea that we might reach half a million articles was beginning to emerge (as I write this, we have 3,202,192). If anyone in this discussion needs "some experience editing articles", it's not me. You keep saying that this template allows editors to "edit for flow", as if this was somehow impossible or painfully difficult before this template came about. We've done well enough with WP:REFNAME in the past. It still seems to me that this is a celery-class optimisation. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point, possibly because, despite your time here, you have never edited a heavily reference-laden article for flow (or else you'd know exactly what I am talking about). You say that "it's only 6 characters", while not realizing that it's half the visual clutter. In the sample case of 100 named references, you'd have 12x100=1,200 characters of visual clutter with the old system, vs. 6x100=600 with the new. That's still not perfect, but it's a huge improvement if you are squinting through the clutter trying to edit for flow, and now half of that distracting and useless junk is gone. If you are aware of another solution, please point me to it. And even if you personally don't edit for flow, and don't benefit from this, why prevent others who find it helpful from using it? Crum375 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to give you any serious answers while you keep spouting the same nonsensical points and then handwave when asked to justify it. As for your continued attacks on my experience, I'm wondering whether perhaps you're the one short on competence, if you can't properly edit articles which contain lots of references. I'mm also thinking more of whichever poor sap will have to close this, who may very well not have the faintest idea what you're talking about. So, if you want your entire contribution to this debate to be read as "Hey, this notice is breaking articles", and "I believe this makes my life easier, but I can't really explain how", fine. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I cannot understand how this template makes things more complicated. Apparently server load is not something we should worry about (no surprise there). So the only other significant argument against {{r}} I can see is that it confuses some tools (in that they miss the template - no actual harm is done). Which sounds like a reason to extend the tools, rather than delete the template. Nobody is being forced to use it - it's there if you like it. Which I do. I am genuinely confused by so much hostility against something that makes page source easier to read. GyroMagician (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here's a hint as to how it makes things more complicated: Assume I want to add a new reference to a article where {{r}} is being used. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are encouraged to use the {{r}} template if it's already there, but technically mixed styles work fine, no complication at all. Crum375 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Until you actually come to read it, and think "Hang on, how do I add a reference?" 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In the unlikely event that you find the usage instructions too complicated, use the old system. It will work just fine. Crum375 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you really saying that you (or any other wiki editor) are not smart enough to figure out what {{r|smith}} might mean, and to copy it for your own use? If that really is so, as Crum375 points out, you can use <ref></ref> in the same article, with no ill effect. This seems like a well-designed template, in that it is fully backward compatible with the previous markup style. GyroMagician (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think it was patently clear from the Pump discussion that it is not backward-compatible. You still haven't answered the question of how a confused editor would add a new reference. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am not sure how a discussion thread can change reality: go and add a ref of any style to any article with the r template, and see if you have any problem (you won't). And a "confused" editor can use any style he wants, just like today. Crum375 (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • OK, here we go. New editor wants to add a reference to the Devil's Dictionary. [1]? [2]? No, that clearly didn't work as expected. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • New editor either copy-pastes an example if {{r}} is already there, or uses the old system. No worse off than before. Crum375 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Why are you trying to confuse a discussion about {{r}} with list defined references? Should that extension be deleted as well? GyroMagician (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • What do LDR's have to do with anything? This template can only be used to add a reference that is already defined elsewhere. To add a new one, you would have to use the old syntax anyway (whether inline or in a reflist). In short, this replaces one highly specific aspect of the reference syntax with a more opaque version that does the same. Increasingly new users are finding it more and more difficult to "get into" Wikipedia. Horrendous schemes such as this are at least somewhat to blame. Ultimately, the one charge that nobody can defend is that this template is redundant to the existing WP:REFNAME syntax, without providing a real benefit that can be quantified in some sensible way. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"without providing a real benefit that can be quantified in some sensible way": If reducing the total visual clutter in edit mode by eliminating half the distracting junk characters is not a quantitative and sensible benefit, then I don't know what is. Crum375 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is based on the assumption that our goal is to "reduce the total visual clutter in edit mode", and that the reference syntax is "distracting junk". The fact that it's half is irrelevant when the saving is as small as this. It's an optimisation that takes more energy to process than it could ever hope to save. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's based on the assumption that our goal is to write high quality articles with high quality prose. As any experienced editor will tell you, that can't be easily done due to the distracting visual clutter in edit mode, and the inability to edit for flow results in poor prose. Reducing that needless clutter by a half is a vast improvement. And nobody is forced to use this improved method; people can still use the old cluttered way if they wish. Crum375 (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The discussion linked to by the nominator isn't even primarily about deleting this template - it's mainly a reflection of the disruption caused by systematically implementing any style change across many articles at ones. Editors who want to use this template should be free to do so. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:21, 18 February 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:Streets in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona 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) 04:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Streets in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nearly all of the streets listed have been merged to Phoenix metropolitan area arterial roads. The two not merged, Central Avenue Corridor and Grand Avenue, are also described and linked to from that page. In addition, Grand Avenue is currently subject of a proposed merger to U.S. Route 60 in Arizona. See Talk:Baseline Road (Arizona) for background. Cnilep (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly redirects; not enough distinct links to justify having a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 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:Penumbra series 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) 04:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Penumbra series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by Template:Frictional games MrStalker (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redundant to the other template, which is slightly broader in scope. --RL0919 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 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:Lxs 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) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template could supposedly be used for creating [[Pipe links|links]] without pipes. As the discussion page points out, this might have been an awesome idea when Wikipedia was still new, but millions of articles later, I don't think people will change their established habits, and I don't think this kind of templates add enough convenience to editing to justify their existence. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is just going to confuse unexperienced users, for no good reason. --84.221.68.108 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, There doesn't seem to be much different from just changing the link name yourself. FineCheeses (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think this template would have ever been a good idea. As someone who has never used a piped link or this template, I think that a piped link is much much more intuitive. Keegscee (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides for the IP, everyone who has commented on this template has ties to RationalWiki (and since this is the first and only contribution of the IP I would imagine that he does too). We should probably get a few non partisan contributers to voice their opinion. Keegscee (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless, Templates are supposed to simplify edits; not make them more complex. TheresaWilson (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not particularly wiki-savvy, but surely using this template takes longer than not using it? It seems to be a non-solution to a non-problem. StarDelta (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's really no need to wrap a basic feature of wikimarkup in a template like this, especially when the template invocation is more confusing than the raw markup. (What does "lxs" even stand for?) Zetawoof(ζ) 08:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is possibly useful for sortable table sortkeys. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:36, 18 February 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:Pederasty 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) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Almost empty now. Pcap ping 03:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom, also, it's no longer used in any articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a series article with one entry does nobody any good. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:35, 14 February 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:Tooshort 2 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 redirect. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tooshort 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lead too short (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Tooshort 2 with Template:Lead too short.
Differences in text (and therefore proposed use) are too minimal to justify an additional template. Debresser (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Lead too short" is the better named and the more accurate for most situations. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a redirect at "tooshort 2" to "lead too short" 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 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:Not specifically in source 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 Merge supported. Will redirect {{Not specifically in source}} to {{Failed verification}}. Renaming to {{Not in citation}} is a reasonable suggestion, but should be discussed further with appropriate notification to users of {{Failed verification}}, since the notice for this discussion appears only at {{Not specifically in source}}. I would suggest Template talk:Failed verification or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates as good venues for discussing a rename, and I'm happy to help with the move if there is consensus for it. RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not specifically in source (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Failed verification (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Not specifically in source with Template:Failed verification.
The differences between the uses of these templates , as follows from the documentation pages, are too minimal to justify this template's existence. Debresser (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest merging to "not specifically in source" which is the clearer name. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. "Failed verification" reads like a pretty good justification for removing something, whereas "not specifically in source" reads more like the intended purposes of these two templates. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename to {{not in citation}} -- simple, memorable.--Father Goose (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. No need for all those wound up names. Debresser (talk) 07:51, 15 February 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:BLP unverified 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 Do not merge. There is some support in the discussion for outright deletion of {{BLP unverified}}, and more for outright keeping, but very little interest in a merger. No prejudice against a straight deletion nomination for either template in the future. RL0919 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP unverified (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BLP sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:BLP unverified with Template:BLP sources.
New template. Same idea as {{BLP sources}}, as far as I can discern from its documentation, just refering to an earlier version. Now that is really useless. If the idea is to get sources, {{Citation needed}} could be used. Debresser (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would have been better if you had asked me directly (or on the talk page of BLP unverified) for clarification, but here it is:
    • {{BLP sources}} merely states that the article has insufficient sources or citations to back up its claims.
    • The purpose of {{BLP unverified}} is specifically to put uncited information into an archive on the talk page (linked via the BLP unverified template). Take a look at an example of how it's actually used: Talk:Lisa_Hordijk. Click on the diff within the template: some information that the editor was unable to verify was removed from the article (along with the "BLP sources" tag, since that was the remaining unsourced information). Some other editor can come along at a later time, check out the version linked to within the BLP unverified tag, and restore the information if they can find sources for it. Meanwhile, however, the unsourced information is removed from the article proper, so as to keep the public from reading potentially harmful information.
  • Thus, they're completely different templates, each with a radically purpose, albeit a complementary one. I'd appreciate your feedback on how the documentation of {{BLP unverified}} should be tweaked so as to avoid this confusion in the future.--Father Goose (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. I do understand these differences, just that I do not think these are sufficient reason for making a template. Debresser (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand you oppose the behavior of "archiving" unverified information in general?--Father Goose (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both though probably rename both to indicate more clearly what they are saying "BLP needing more sources" is the meaning of the first; "BLP with unverified versions" is the meaning of the second. The widespread use of the BLP unverified template is not yet justified by consensus, but I see no reason for not introducing it now, when someone does decide to work in this fashion. I don;t want to prejudge how we will decide to deal with these, but there's room for both approaches. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep completely different functions. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP unverified As DGG notes, there is no consensus for wide-scale removal of non-contentious content. I see no reason to keep a template for a process that goes against consensus. I don't support merging it, as they are different. It's unfortunate that this TfD was framed as a merge discussion. I would hope that if this closes as no-action that it could be relisted as a pure TfD. Gigs (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should note that I too oppose the wide-scale removal of non-contentious content. If the template is used selectively -- as so far it has been -- then it has its place. In the Talk:Lisa_Hordijk article, for example, it was used to archive likely-to-be-true information but which nonetheless could not be sourced after a reasonable search. In an even more important example, Talk:Emilie_Autumn, it was used to remove unsourced information from the article after Ms. Autumn had expressed unhappiness over the inaccuracies in her bio: [2]. Consider the potential uses of the template that even an inclusionist like yourself, myself, DGG, and other inclusionists who have spoken positively of the template could consider benevolent before assuming it's an attempt to eliminate all information from BLPs solely on the basis that it's unsourced.
    • If somebody is removing content on a mass scale against consensus, with or without the use of this template, I oppose that behavior and you should as well. The template itself is a needed option for when we need to clean up a biography quickly (in response to an OTRS complaint, for instance) while facilitating the recovery of the information later when we have time to find sources.--Father Goose (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To think that I was considered somewhat deletionist just a few months ago. I'm pretty sure it wasn't me who changed, heh. I see your point, a tool is a tool, a tool doesn't cause disruption, people do. To be honest I'm not so worried about someone going rogue and stubbing 3000 articles with this template as I am about 3000 well-intentioned but more naive people using it to stub 6000 articles over the next year, thinking it to be a proper thing to do with non-contentious information that doesn't have inline cites. The former case we can deal with. The latter case isn't so easy. Gigs (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The ongoing RfC isn't likely to completely answer the question of what's going to happen with unsourced information in bios. Sooner or later we have to get them all fixed up. Preferably by actually adding sources, not deletion. There are people right now who are stubbing articles regardless of what other people say, and they have their defenders, amongst admin ranks and even in the ArbCom. So the template is a potential way to minimize the damage of their behavior until we really get it sorted out.--Father Goose (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Who is still systematically stubbing articles? I don't agree that "sooner or later we have to get them all fixed up". Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect. It's a work in progress, and always will be. Gigs (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know who, if anyone, is stubbing articles at this moment -- I know JBsupreme and Unitanode were doing it recently. But for years now there has been an emphasis on citations in Wikipedia articles, and I have no doubt that there is going to be an especially intense emphasis on citing all info in bios in the years to come. I accept that correcting that particular imperfection (unsourced BLPs) is worth prioritizing.
            • I'd be happy if all these articles got fully sourced within a reasonable timeframe instead of stubbed (or worse still, deleted). I am most supportive of using {{BLP unverified}} on info that could not be sourced after a reasonable effort but that is nonetheless not "contentious". It could still be true, but I think it's best to move it off the page until someone can perform more exhaustive research.--Father Goose (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • See, that's the fundamental problem. That's exactly not how the wiki works. We don't remove someone's contribution just because it isn't verified yet. We just don't. People are free to contribute their knowledge without digging for a source. If someone else comes along and calls it bunk, then the burden is on the people adding or restoring it to source it. But we don't just delete it because it's not sourced. That destroys the wiki process, and why our policy is called "verifiability", not "verification". Gigs (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I most definitely agree with that. That's why I specified "could not be sourced after a reasonable effort". We can't leave stuff in that can't be sourced -- that violates WP:V. But there's a difference between "can't be sourced" and "I couldn't find a source". Regardless, if someone can't find a source for something after a reasonable effort, I support their removing it. If it seems like something that is on-the-level and that might be sourceable with additional effort, that's a great use for the BLP unverified template -- it gives us a chance to circle back and double-check it later.
                • I'm not sure the "enforcement" environment on Wikipedia right now is going to stop people from stubbing inadequately sourced BLPs. If we can't block, or even necessarily revert people who are doing that, I'd rather the damage be mitigated through the use of the BLP unverified template. Will its very presence encourage people to stub biographies simply because they're undersourced, where they wouldn't have if the template didn't exist? If they do, and there's no consensus for doing that, go ahead and put the template up for deletion again, and I'll probably call for its deletion as well.--Father Goose (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as per Gigs. DES (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since nobody has offered a compelling reason to either delete or merge.--Father Goose (talk) 00:42, 23 February 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.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference The Devil's Dictionary was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_14&oldid=1146550414"