Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 29 January 31 >

January 30 edit

Template:How-to 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 Move to {{Wikipedia how to}}, other descriptive redirects can be created if desired. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:How-to (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposing move to {{WPHow-to}} and then redirecting Template:How-to to Template:Howto; this template is too easily confused with {{howto}}, which is an article message box. c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 22:23, 30 January 2011 (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:Routeboxwa/county 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) 23:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routeboxwa/county (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used before MOS:RJL came into effect and {{infobox road}} was widespread. Still transl on a few talk pages, but not in use in mainspace any longer. Admrboltz (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2011 (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:Bus routes topicon 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) 23:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bus routes topicon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unused template. Despite describing in detail where its creator thinks it should be used, it's redundant to simply doing this, which in any case is invariably reverted. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no need for having a bus icon for this use, let alone a template for it. The template also says it should only be used on UK bus articles. Why? Arriva436talk/contribs 20:00, 30 January 2011 (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:Usercategory 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) 23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rarely used template, that's only on two userpages, where we can replace it with the appropriate category call. Also redundant to {{User other}}, which follows our naming scheme, i.e. {{<namespace> other}}. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and replace with the raw category invocation. Seemingly intended for use in userboxes, but they should never be placed on non-user pages anyway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2011 (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:Tu 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicated functionality of the more widely used {{Tlu}} template that also accepts up to ten parameters, thus providing more features. Most current usages come from templates and the rest can probably easily be replaced. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The formatting is different and is similar to the tl & tlx template styles. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Code Result
tu {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|1|2|3}}
tlu {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|1|2|3}}
tl {{Navbar}}
tlx {{Navbar|1|2|3}}
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:Tlw 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) 21:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old template sharing template which duplicated {{Tl}}'s functionality. Few uses should be replaced. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2011 (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:Tlxm 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) 21:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template sharing legacy: A template once copied from Commons, which allows the functionality of {{Tlx}}, just for templates from Meta. Rarely used and rarely needed, should be deleted because the same functionality can be achieved with {{Tlx}}'s |sister= parameter. Few remaining uses can easily be substituted. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2011 (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:Small nav 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) 18:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Small nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used by 6 templates that could use {{Navbox}} instead. WOSlinker (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can the width of the entire nav baox be adjsuted in {{Navbox}}? Can an image be added to the upper left? If so, then yes, the templates using this could be migrated. Otherwise, the main point of this template is to be smaller - hence the name - and to have an image in that spot. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Width can be altered but images can only be added left and right in the body. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless you add the image to the title, but as stated below, that makes it wider than necessary. Frietjes (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The header of the small nav template is way too big. The reason {{navbox}} doesn't have an image there is because it takes up too much vertical space. Thus, this template is non-standard, poorly designed, and redundant to {{navbox}}, and should be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2011 (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:Invitation to edit 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 relisted to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 7#Template:Invitation to edit. The discussion has been listed at WP:CENT because a broad consensus is needed for a change to the user interface. Cunard (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Invitation to edit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid). Additionally, the following complaints have been raised on the associated discussion page:

  • This implementation is intrusive, and just not very suitable for widespread use
  • If you are [running NoScript, etc.], then the template appears as a very large block of green text.
  • This…wants to add something else to some articles; permanent tutorial information about Wikipedia itself. There is nothing article-specific about this information. There is no reason why the information needs to be included at the article level.
  • The task the template attempts to achieve is impractical. You cannot teach people how to add reliably-sourced and referenced content in a few paragraphs.
  • not well-designed from a user interface point of view
  • Having the template at the very top of the page indicates that it is one of the most important things you need to know about the subject… in fact it is completely unrelated to the subject
  • the "You may edit this article" phrase furthers the notion that Wikipedia is unreliable because "anyone can edit"
  • The Main Page already states that anyone may edit

While this "study" and the ideal of encouraging and training more quality editors have some merit, the implementation of this template is not a good way to go about doing it. Better to delete this template now, rather than to let it spread like a cancer into more articles. 06:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. Would be happy to hear other ideas to increase the number of editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WRT this decreasing peoples opinion of Wikipedia, people need accurate information, yes anyone can edit and they can do with this what they will.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, it's intrusive and not very suitable for widespread use. It is a prototype, being trialled on 20 medical articles for a month, to test the principle, to see if it improves the quantity and quality of first edits. Please let us know at the project talk page if it starts going viral. If trials show the strategy is effective, and after widespread community consultation it is decided to implement the strategy, the design and location of the invitation will be determined by community consultation. This is a trial. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a good idea, and it's a trial. I agree it looks out of place, but if it's effective, we can always find a better way to implement the idea. I must point out that many people simply do not realize anyone can edit. The Main Page says it, but people don't pay attention to that. "The task the template attempts to achieve is impractical. You cannot teach people how to add reliably-sourced and referenced content in a few paragraphs" is untrue to a point; I do it all the time when trying to help new users and sometimes it works and other times people choose to ignore it. You can't eliminate the latter type of people, and the template's not the problem here. The argument that this template makes Wikipedia seem even more unreliable is a moot point; we have a general disclaimer for a reason and anyone arguing that Wikipedia is reliable is wrong; Wikipedia is based off reliable sources but does not claim to be itself reliable. There is no danger of this template spreading like cancer and it is ridiculous to delete this template now when we haven't even concluded whether it works well or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm on record as opposing this scheme, and some of the objections listed above are mine. I completely support the objectives, but I do not think this is the correct mechanism to achieve them - even if it works. All the same, the trial should be allowed to complete as planned. Thparkth (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the reasons above. A test is a test. --Garrondo (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominating this template for deletion is not the right mechanism to express opposition over the Wikipedia:Invitation to edit trial. That aside, it should be kept because the trial may yield useful information about how we can encourage more readers to become editors. Responding to some of your bullet points:
    • The template does not violate WP:SELFREF because it is not intended to be part of the article content. It is more like the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" tagline at the top of the page.
    • The template may be a little intrusive, but that is an argument for improving not deleting. We have been working on improving the template for some time and further ideas would be welcome.
    • If the template is not working properly in some environments, please report this and we will do our best to fit it.
    • The current tutorial is aimed at medicial articles, and the aim would be to include relevant information particular to an article, not general information. However, perhaps the same benefits can be attained by simply linking to this information rather than transcluding it. This is something that could be discussed in an appropriate place.
  • — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the wrong way to complain about this trial. If it works, then we should improve on it. If it fails, we should try something else. And despite the nom's claims that everybody knows anyone can edit because it says so on Main Page, I frequently find people who didn't know this. Maybe it's because not everyone stops off at the front page on their way to an article.
    I was speaking to a newly minted physician last fall who was astonished to discover that anyone could edit the articles. "I thought you had to register and prove your credentials and..." to which my reply way, "Nope, you're probably thinking of Scholarpedia." (As an aside: I do not understand why medical schools don't cover this as a critical piece of information about dealing with patients. It would take less than ten minutes to prove beyond any doubt that anyone can edit these articles—and that consequently, they should view the information with a healthy level of skepticism, and perhaps make an effort to improve their patients' health by fixing up some of the articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the way to enable such a feature is via a banner like the ones periodically asking for funding; show it only to IP editors, set a cookie when the box is explicitly dismissed, and give the cookie a generous timeout (maybe a week). For everyone else, this template is an obnoxious distraction. I agree in full with Willscrlt’s list of objections. –jacobolus (t) 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a prototype, in a limited series of small proof-of-principle studies. We are testing to see what (if any) effect an invitation and attached mini-tutorial has on new editor behaviour. If there is a positive effect, the nature of the interface will be addressed in a broad community consultation. This is a trial of a strategy, not a roll-out of a new template. Please let us know if it starts going viral. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- I didn't know this was happening, but it sounds like an interesting test! And worth trying ... a template deletion discussion isn't the way to decide such things, anyway. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This isn't the place to raise complaints about a proposal. --- c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 06:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A few of Willscrlt's points have some merit to them. A few have no merit at all. The fact that some points have some merit is the reason why this template is a trial, on only 20 articles. The significance of Willscrlt's points can be fully evaluated after the trial. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Delete Concerns that this is not the right venue are unwarranted. This thing is completely obnoxious and there's no need to waste any more time even considering it. Note that this TfD was canvassed on the medical project's discussion page. Gigs (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A single light-green bar, a quarter of an inch tall, on 20 pages, rises to "completely obnoxious" in your books? That seems like a bit of an overreaction. I'd put spam and vandalism in that category, not a good-faith effort to encourage new editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is for a trial. The template is not going to be widely used. --Yair rand (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep aside from the fact that its been added to John Barry (composer) which isn't a medical article this seems pretty good. I would agree that it should start out collapsed by default, but really you should just enable Javascript - pretty much every browser supports it and most websites use it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is part of an on-going trial. To put the template up for deletion mid-trial is quite disruptive when it has already been heavily discussed including at the village pump.Polyamorph (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has been on trial for a while on pain, and the benefits for the article have been minimal. The premise behind the template is good, but it doesn't work. JFW | T@lk 12:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still on trial, it's impossible to say if it does or does not work yet because the trial has not finished. The project talk page is here if you want to discuss whether it works. Polyamorph (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was put on Pain, a quiet, stable article, just to make sure there were no bugs. It is unsurprising the template has had no obvious impact there. The 20 trial articles are of lower quality and higher readership. Nothing can be inferred from the invitation's impact on one quiet article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons given in the nomination, and in particular because it is a violation of the manual of style in connection with self-reference, and because it is unnecessary: all articles have an edit tag att eh top, and we don't need a special invitation on particular articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ITE reads: "To encourage more readers to edit, and to improve the quality of new editors' first efforts". I don't think encouraging more readers to edit will improve quality. Most people who are editors here were already inclined to do this sort of thing, the vast majority of readers probably don't even want to edit. Wikipedia has a high learning curve, it takes a lot more than a simple invitation template to get readers to contribute quality referenced content. If this template becomes widespread I think it would only increase the amount of rollbacks we need to make. I think it was very well put by User:Thparkth on the WP:ITE talk page when he wrote, "I do not believe that a brand-new editor would have any hope of successfully following the instructions in the "Citing sources" section, for example - it simply assumes too much pre-knowledge. Just this sentence - "Copy the style of other references in the article" - would be the "I give up" point for many people." I agree with him that the task this template attempts to achieve is impractical. -- œ™ 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, easy citation for new users is badly needed. For now, the best we can do is explain it in the simplest possible terms. As you know, there is a strongly supported proposal to put a simple referencing tool at the top of the edit box by default, presently being considered at MediaWiki talk:Common.js. If/when this is implemented, citation instructions will be vastly simplified. As for the rest of your comment: the purpose of this study is to determine whether you are right. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get rid of this hideous creature. The idea of it being placed on every single article (which is obviously the goal) is more horrific than anyone's worst nightmare. It's gotta be cut off now, before it spreads. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a bit sick of this. Every delete vote has misunderstood this thing, except for one who thinks trialling this on one quiet article can determine its worth. It will almost certainly not look like this if and when it is implemented. It may be a subtle line of black text under the article title. It may be an elegant box above the infobox. I don't know. That's up to people with more taste in these matters than me. This is a trial of a concept not a template. The concept is an invitation to edit with a tailored intro' to editing, above the article. Delete votes that say, "it made no noticeable difference on Pain" or "I think it won't work" or "it's ugly" are no argument at all. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Anthony, it is irresponsable to "vote" to delete a template which is in use and part of a trial in order to stop that trial in its tracks. No one has ever said that this template will be used globally but it is absolutely necessary for research purposes. This deletion discussion should not be taking place, those who object should instead raise their concerns at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit. Polyamorph (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that I have "misunderstood this thing". This template is currently being used on dozens of articles. It is inconsistent with Wikipedia standards. The fact that it is "only" a trial does not justify the use of a template which is inconsistent with Wikipedia standards. I also don't like being told that it is "irresponsable" to oppose the use of this template. While I do understand the perfectly good faith intentions of those who are conducting the trial, they are at present using a template which is unacceptable by Wikipedia standards, and those of us who think so have every right to say so, and to express the opinion that it should be stopped. It is not at all "irresponsable" to do so. Finally, in answer to "this deletion discussion should not be taking place", why not? There are Wikipedians who think that the template should be deleted. It is perfectly reasonable for them to start a discussion on whether it should be. It is also perfectly reasonable for those who think it should not be deleted to take part in the discussion and say so, but not to deny others the right to initiate that discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the record I didn't say it is irresponsable to oppose the use of the template, I simply said it's irresponsable to use a deletion discussion "to stop that trial in its tracks" (in response to the comment above "It's gotta be cut off now, before it spreads"). I just felt it would be more appropriate to discuss use of the template on its discussion page first rather than open a deletion discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I agree with you. Clearly, from what you've just said, you think it is inappropriate to trial the template, as it stands, on even 19 articles, and that is a reasonable position, though I don't share it. I also agree you, and anyone else, have a right or even obligation. to challenge behaviour here that you think is inappropriate. Can I ask you how we could change the trial so it was acceptable to you? (Here or at the project talk page is fine with me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anthony, I didn't misunderstand. I don't care if it's green or pink or "elegant". The entire concept is bad and needs to be nipped in the bud. Gigs (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry. Can you explain to me, here or there what's wrong with it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. There's no point in wasting any more time on this. Gigs (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you change your mind, please let me know. If there is one good reason not to proceed with this, I'll jump at it. I really don't want to waste my time on a bad idea, and I really have some content I'd like to get stuck into. So, think about it. You'd be doing me, several others, and the project a favour if you could make a good case against this strategy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what it will look like when it's implemented, the idea of it being up on every single Wikipedia page at that particular location, regardless of its visual appearance (unless it's invisible), is not an idea I cherish. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying things like "every single Wikipedia page". I've followed this proposal almost since its beginning, and I do not recall seeing anyone support mindlessly placing this template (or any potential successors) on every single Wikipedia page. Can you show me one diff in which anyone has proposed using this template (or its successors) on "every single Wikipedia page"? And if you can't find any such diffs either, would you please strike these unsupportable exaggerations and replace them with something more accurate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The intention isn't to put this on every single Wikipedia page? Well, what's the intention? I don't mean the trials, I mean in the long run. What is this template for? What percentage or what type of pages would it be placed on? Maybe I didn't understand. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 
The intention is to try to affect this graph, to discover whether an explicit statement that the reader can edit the article will increase the number of new editors, and whether attaching a simple intro' tutorial makes that easier. What happens next will be up to the community. This is a study, a series of trials. This is not a template roll-out. If you see it going viral, please mention it at the proposal talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that your answer, or this concept, leaves the chance open that this thing will end up on every Wikipedia page. Even if there's only a 10% chance that will happen, or a 5% chance. That's too high a risk for me to take, even if the possibility isn't that strong, as long as there is a possibility. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you don't like about that possible outcome, All Hallow's Wraith? Bear in mind the location and look of the invitation are changeable. It could be an expanded "Edit this page" tab, it could be a line of black text under the article title (replacing "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"), or some other option. If are you opposed to including an explicit invitation to edit anywhere on the article page, why? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's intrusive and unnecessary, considering we already have an "edit" button. The primary purpose of Wikipedia should be to be present facts, not to invite people to edit them. I don't mind what you just said about this template expanding from the "Edit" button that already exists if somebody were to press on it or something like that, but that's not what's being suggested. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an unnecessary eyesore. Totally superfluous with the "Edit this page" button. Raul654 (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely correct. Now why are you opposed to trialing this template on a bunch of articles to see if it does anything to the edit rate? The template is so terrible that any short-term small-scale placement of it in order to understand its effects should be disallowed? --Yair rand (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A limited use template for a data gathering trial does not need to be killed before the trial is over. Patience, oh delete voters. Regardless of how the trial goes, it will be determined that aesthetics and rule-following are more important than usability and creating a welcoming environment for delicious new editors. Then we can kill it. --Danger (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if the numbers of editors continues to decrease at the rate it is we will at least at a future time have a bit more of an idea how to / or not to address this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - great idea, I love it. Wikipedia should have been using this from the day it began. Even for those who don't like it, surely it's acceptable for at least a temporary trial? Robofish (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is obvious (from the above discussion) that there is not widespread consensus for this trial at this time. This should go through RfC before being recreated. WP:VPR (where, I might add, it had a grand total of two supporters) isn't always good enough. --NYKevin @005, i.e. 23:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Proposer. Anthony
  2. "I quite like this idea, and I think it deserves a trial." Yair rand
  3. "I think it is about right." Dmcq
  4. "I think Anthony's idea is definitely worth a trial." Doc James
  5. "I think you have enough support for a trial." MSGJ
  6. "Support. I think this proposal will raise awareness and expand the ranks of editors." ɳorɑfʈ
  7. "Support. I am willing to support a one month trial on a limited number of articles." Axl
--Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template, no opinion on the trial. Common sense tells that the template should exist for the period of the trial. Once the trial results are made available, the trial project participants can decide what to do with the template. The merits or otherwise of the trial should be discussed elsewhere. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find "the trial project participants can decide what to do with the template" astonishing. We have a group of people who have chosen to get together and do something of their own choice, including introducing a template which many Wikipedians regard as inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. It is totally wrong to then suggest that the members of that group can then decide whether the template is to be kept on their own, without the participation of Wikipedians who are not members of that group. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_30&oldid=1138695089"