Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 26

< July 25	July 27 >

July 26 edit

Template:Infobox Georgetown University ranking 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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Georgetown University ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Strong delete Is duplicative to Template:Infobox US university ranking and introduces inconsistencies across WP:UNI articles. —Eustress ^talk 01:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template is more relevant to Georgetown because it includes rankings in specific fields, such as International Relations and Law, which pretty much define the university and are of more use for most who are interested. You deleted rankings on Duke University page also, claiming that the rankings where skewed, so I think the problem we are having is not with wikipedia standardization but your perceived standing of a particular school. If you think Georgetown's rankings are somehow misrepresented similarly to that of Duke, feel free to add back obscure world rankings but do not hide behind whatever wikipedia rules you think justify deletion of an entire template for the sole reason that it is university-specific and not generic. --Misc11 (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The standard template presents an array of general (overall) university rankings, since no one ranking is definitive and since presenting rankings for all the colleges and departments of a university would be overwhelming for any one table. The Georgetown template cherry-picks the more favorable Georgetown overall rankings (see diff), and then adds in a few, again cherry-picked, college-specific rankings. The former skews the facts and is a form of POV (à la WP:BOOSTER). The latter neglects the several other colleges that remain and again, does not do justice to its colleges/departments. For instance, the Georgetown template lists its business school's #10 BW undergrad ranking in the template but conveniently excludes its #33 MBA ranking and its #50 Economist Global MBA ranking (which are reflected clearly in the b-school table on McDonough School of Business).

The practice of WP:UNI is to use the standard template for overall rankings, then to put college-specific rankings in the body of the article in prose, with further information in the specific article for that particular college (e.g., business school, law school, etc.). This method allows readers to take all rankings into account regarding the university as a whole, investigate their methodologies more in depth if they would like, and then to form their own conclusions.

My recent edits on the Duke article further my point. The Duke article is currently under Featured Article Review, meaning it is being considered for removal of its FA status, because it has drifted out of compliance with Wikipedia policies over time -- the rendering of rankings just one of its issues. And please be careful making accusations about policy use. Such policies represent the consensus of the community. —Eustress ^talk 11:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I've always been a little skeptical of the notability of various university rankings, and while Template:Infobox US university ranking is far from perfect, at least it is a standard. If you think there's one missing, propose it, but if the WP:UNI community can't be convinced to add a certain raking to that template, then we probably don't need it. Misc11, I appreciate the effort put in to customizing Georgetown's page, but we should stick to more universal templates when we can. Again, I'm also doubtful about notability/necessity of the other template, Template:Famous Georgetown University Alumni.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to include something in the body of the paragraph when there is an easy way of putting it in a little box. I want to reiterate that this is not about wikipedia standards, it is about your perceived standing of a particular university and to that I will say, again, that you are free to make whatever additions you may have.

Also, instead of pointing to the WP:UNI page, how about you point me to a specific rule, a written rule, which explicitly says that rankings have to be standardized and which does not permit deviations under any circumstances.

And Patrick, this was never about standardization and rules was it? It is about you feeling like you own the Georgetown article, however great your contributions, and doing everything to ensure that your initial version sticks. That is why you mentioned the alumni template even as it really has nothing to do with standardization. I must again ask you to point me to a specific rule on representing the alumni instead of pointing to home pages and sending me off on a goose chase, looking for rules that I don't seem able to locate.--Misc11 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, Wikipedia doesn't have as strict rules on templates as they do on prose or images. There are some at WP:TMP, but its much more up to the community to decide what stays and what goes. That said, you have to understand that the idea of Wikipedia templates is that they are made to be used across many articles, and a template created just for use on a single article is going to raise questions, and can end up here, at the Templates for discussion page. Also, don't think that having a template here is an insult, or that people's comments on it are meant to question your value as an editor.

On Template:Infobox Georgetown University ranking, I don't think we need to highlight all those various rankings in an infobox, and the ones in Template:Infobox US university ranking I feel are sufficient to get an overview of where these global news outlets place the school. The rankings you added are also not for the university in general, or for the undergraduate/graduate program, but for specific schools, which could be confusing when listed with the more broad rankings. I opted for weak delete because I try to stay out of the Admissions section editing and discussion, and am not sure what precedent there was for a template like this.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 20:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of creating templates is not necessarily to use it on multiple pages. There is another usage which I have noticed, using templates to make articles more neat where copy/pasting the whole thing would take too much space and make orientation difficult. In fact, that is the only reason I created a template, otherwise I would just copy/paste the whole thing.--Misc11 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, for several reasons, (1) it is only used on one page, (2) the references are hard-coded in the template, but the rankings are passed to the template, as if you are going to update the ranking without updating the citations?, (3) Redundant to other templates. (4) Far too specific. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason for this to be a template as it would only be used on one article, Georgetown University, in any event. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any obvious reason why the good parts of this couldn't be merged to the generic template. The various defenses of this particular fork have been pretty much exclusively non-answers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:53, 28 July 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:Nihongo-expanded 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nihongo-expanded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Largely duplicates {{Nihongo}} —Farix (t | c) 23:53, 26 July 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:Evac 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:POINTy template, related to current MFD discussions template creator is involved in. Only used on his own items currently under discussion - goes against ideas at WP:USERFY, specifically what should not be userfied. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously this template is not for making a point, also in the category are more pages than just those few. Also the creators involvement is not a part of reasoning for deletion. Appears to be a useful template, we have needed one like this for a while. Also, nominating templates for deletion immediately after creation is not the best idea. Additionally, What should not be userfied has a written-in exception for self-userfication, which is what this template promotes. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 21:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Bowser423 is the template creator, and everything tagged with this new template is a result of this discussion, as well as this one. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything. Again, the category lists all included pages. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bowser423, I have nothing against you personally, but, please start these things in your userspace. Even userboxes don't often make it out of their creators' userspace. For this template, the syntax is incorrect.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No policy, guideline, or process supports applying this to any article or page facing an XfD - there's simply no purpose for it. The user is creating additional needless clutter as a knee-jerk reaction to existing XfDs for multiple other pages they have created. The user needs to learn to develop consensus for process changes - WP:BOLD has its limits, as does the comunity's patience for disruptive editing. See also the discussion for the category that was created which is closely related to this template at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 26#Category:Pages for Userfication. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless and purely disruptive, as per nom and Barek. Str Pby (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary and disruptiveCurb Chain (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:12, 27 July 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.