Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 12 June 14 >

June 13 edit

Template:Viss to kg 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 {{convert/viss}}. JIMp talk·cont 16:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Viss to kg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The viss is an extremely rare unit. They use it to measure the mass of bells in Burma. If we really need a template to convert this unit, we can add it to {{convert}}. A couple of advantages of using {{convert}} instead would be choice of convert-to units, the ability to link only the input, default rounding to avoid false precision and simplification of the template call. Each of these had been problems I found with the former transclusions of this template before I replaced them both with plain text. JIMp talk·cont 01:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empty section 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. Arguing whether or not an empty section needs a template saying "hey, look, I'm an empty section" is actually irrelevant as the template {{expand section}} already says "hey, look, I'm a section that needs expanding" (same difference) and catalogs the article in the same category. Whether or not that template should exist is a discussion for another day. This template is redundant either way. JPG-GR (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empty section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{expand section}} I can get behind, but this is going too far. It encourages the construction of skeleton articles, and that isn't a good way to get community buy-in (better that the article grows organically and section headers are added to split it as it grows). In the worst case you get things like this, where new editors are given the perception of being constrained in how they're going to improve an article because te work required has been intimately mapped out in advance. All in all this isn't conducive to collaborative, organic editing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Empty sections are silly. If you don't have anything to put in a section, don't create the section. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not always. Sometimes you have a form of a group of articles and you want to retain it. For instance check 1821 and some other random year page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I disagree with the reasons for deletion, when used properly it does have a purpose. both the {{expand section}} and {{empty section}} tgs are useful when an article is undergoing major work, such as wikifying and formatting articles to many of the layouts various Wikiprojects outline. When used properly they aid in collaborative editing and give multiple editors a sense of direction. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some ways the empty section tag could be improved. When working on article cleanup or extensive building the tag is useful for short periods of time. When I add or see an empty section tag on an article I'm working on I usually will give immediate attention to that issue, along with other serious/immediate issues such as copyvio or advert. The empty section tag could benefit from adding a phrase such as many of the Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance have. Something that reads: "If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template and empty section.". Limiting the empty section tag and associated empty section will help prevent Hyacinthe Rigaud example listed in the original post where empty sections and tags have existed for several months. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: You don't need an "empty section" tag for a work in progress. Hide the empty sections using <!-- -->s. JIMp talk·cont 00:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hiding the empty section with comments is only useful for people that actually click the edit link. Having a visibly empty section can be used to indicate that important information is missing, possibly stimulating someone to edit if they know a good source that covers that information. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Theoldsparkle. The whole point of sections is to divide information that's in the article; if you're following a pattern and really really need to have that section, don't create the article until you're ready to add the information that goes in the section. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes it's clear that certain information needs to be in the article (for instance, "Diet" and "Description" need to go in the article Crow -- no question about it). In these sorts of cases, empty sections can clearly illustrate (like other article issue templates) that something very important is missing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Template has over 45000 transclusions. May be misused, but I seem to remember this template being used for bot-created articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bot-created stubs are not going to be adversely impacted by the removal of pointless skeletal sections. If anything the lack of an impression of a mandated structure is more likely to encourage users to dive in and edit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several subjects use a skeleton layout across all the articles. It can be useful to have the empty sections for consistency sake, and this little box provides a friendly note to passers-by that they can update it. I see no validity in the reasons given for deletion, as A) there is no prerequisite to hide empty sections and B) the tag doesn't promote bad editorship (it comes here already promoted, trust me), but rather it highlights areas in need of improvement. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While there is no rule against empty sections, consensus from the very early days of the project has always been against them in general. Nevertheless, the problem is not with empty sections as such but rather about a template which positively encourages articles to be constructed headers-first. This is intimidating to users who may feel pressured into constructing an article in a certain way based on a framework slapped down quickly or automatically without consideration for the organic nature of article growth here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's reversed logic to think that the tag is causing the behaviour. Deleting it to solve the problem is throwing the baby out with the bath water. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 10:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree skeleton layouts are useful. I do it myself. However, the skeleton does not need to be visible in the article. If an article is undergoing major editing, either use the preview button and do it all in one big edit or work on it in your own userspace. The reasons for "keep" make sense only when considered from an editing perspective; from a reader's perspective, the obvious question is, "Why did they bother to publish it if it isn't finished?" (keeping in mind that, to a reader, published means finished. LordVetinari 04:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:DEADLINE - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 10:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, obviously there's no deadline. But that wasn't my point. You and I know there's no such thing as a finished article but the casual reading public, taught over many centuries to equate publication with a finished work, naturally assumes otherwise. People want permanent "facts" and struggle to adapt when faced with a polite, "Sorry, we were wrong. The earth goes around the sun, not the sun around the earth. Have a nice day." It isn't just the ability of anyone to edit WP that gives us a reputation for unreliability, its also the fact that people can't rely on the text they're reading to be the same the next time they look at it. I voted for deletion as it'll help downplay that fact.
        • I think it is counter-productive to downplay that. Readers need to understand the nature of Wikipedia and be comfortable with it. We should remind them that it is ever-changing rather than attempt to hide that fact.--Taylornate (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I see your point. For that matter, I think you've given a good argument against {{empty section}}. The organic nature of Wikipedia's growth is best shown in the absence of that template. When section headings are pre-planned (as emphasised by the template), people will feel as though they're supposed to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately, that approach discourages new editors who want to add stuff how they think it ought to be added, not how others say it should be. LordVetinari 10:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete Have a look at 1821 in archaeology which is overwhelmed by the template, applied to sections where it seems likely that there is little, if anything, appropriate to add. Better continue to discourage creation of empty sections in the first place, or at least apply the template with more discretion Camboxer 10:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's a poor article with or without the template, it has a few short sentences and no references. I still haven't seen too many strong arguments for deletion besides a lot of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I see no good reasons to delete this template. --Lecen (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Useless just like the empty sections it populates. If you must have a pre-set layout then hide the empty section until someone puts something in it. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the original motion; often I see people using this template because they are too lazy to create the relevant content for the section that they put this template under. It is is also damn ugly, IMHO. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've seen users create blank sections and add this tag, with no positive results. Also agree with the original reason for deletion.Tintor2 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If some users find it useful, then it should be kept. If it highlights a failing of an article, that needs to be improved upon, that is otherwise not highlighted without it, it should be kept. IMHO it serves as useful a purpose as Template:expand section or Template:update. Those who disagree with it, are free to not use it; or better yet, when found, expand the article where they found it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument would hold for absolutely any cleanup tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly... and it holds for this one. Keep.--Taylornate (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I meant by that was that it was an absolute non-argument. Whether editors find the tag useful or not is irrelevant if they find it useful for doing something we don't want them to do, which is creating articles which consist solely of headers and expecting other editors to do the work of filling the content in. They should not be encouraged to do so by a template built for that purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That a section is empty is too self-evident to need graphic annotation. It is just clutter. Using the template for categorization is too nonspecific to be helpful. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consider the article RD Slovan. Now I nothing whatsoever about handball. But until recently there was an empty section tag under the Yugoslavian Club Honours subsection. Without that section, I can just imagine some RD Slovan fan coming and thinking, "now I thought they won that one award in 1990. Where is it?" and come away thinking that they weren't awarded that award after all, missing an opportunity to edit the article. The empty section tag acknowledges that something is missing from the article. It prevents a certain kind of misdirection. (Untagged empty sections are clearly the worst alternative here, I think we can all agree.) As for its ugliness, I don't think the empty section tag will appear on too many big, oft-visited articles. It will appear on relatively obscure articles that without empty section tags would appear to be complete. Without the empty section tag, people will visit such articles thinking, "oh, anyone who spent their time starting this article must be fairly interested in this tiny topic; I trust they've said what can be already." This is not what we want.
    Replying to parentheses: untagged sections are NOT the worst option, the worst would be not having and article at all...as far as im concerned, but theres always different views out there. theres that 1% of people who say something different so remember: nobody can think that everyone agrees on something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.21.180 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 June 2011
  • What is so bad about creating articles consisting solely of headers? I don't think it forces people into accepting someone else's outline anymore than completely omitting a section makes people forget about or devalue the missing content (which is at least as bad). If someone doesn't like the outline of headers, they can change it. I concede that it doesn't seem the best style to have a page of blank sections. But that hardly merits the tag be eliminated. Just a new kid's two cents' worth. Leonxlin (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were to create an article consisting solely of headers it would get speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A3. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I don't believe there are many instances where empty sections are useful, but it is obvious enough that the section is empty that the tag is unnecessary. If anything, a template could be created to tag the top of the page with, "There are empty sections on this page, you can help by adding to them." Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Recently, I tagged the "Reception and Legacy" section of Mega Man X with this template because it is very empty. That leaves to editors to decide whether to keep that section and then fill in the entry or to remove that section with its purpose absent. Why else would this template be deleted besides as "an unnecessary template"? --Gh87 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I STRONGLY VOTE TO KEEP THIS TEMPLATE. It leaves room for more information coming in and other references (1), would almost be defeating the purpose of Wikipedia, adding new information to articles (2), leave section in article for brainstorming on subject (3), able to put it on a WikiProject (4), no real urge and really no reason to delete (5), keep template just in case (6), again (from 4), upgrade the grading level for such tags to fill in blank sections (7), read: “This section is empty. You can help by adding to it.” ADDING TO IT (8), (also please change to “This section is currently empty...”), title of section could be searched at [www.google.com Google] for section info (9), (please read other comments for more), tag would encourage people to add info (10). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.21.180 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 June 2011
  • Delete - does not encourage organic growth of articles. Kaldari (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I have only added empty sections once; when I was tidying up List of hospitals in India. I know, it still needs a lot of work. It is edited a lot by ip's many of which just put their favorite hospital, complete with address and website, anywhere. I added the missing states as headers to help new editors (and ultimately me) get the page into some form of order. However, in this situation I see no need for the template to be inserted and the header alone should suffice. In fact if a section is empty for a good reason, basically that the information exists but hasn't been added yet, I don't see the need to label it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never yet seen this used in a constructive way, and I have seen long strings of totally pointless empty sections that have existed for months, sometimes even years, which make the article look a mess. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I understand the criticism, but ultimately the problem is that the template is misused. We can't and should not remove everything that can be misused or is being misused. The template is only shorthand for "this page intentionally blank". Removing the template won't stop people from creating empty sections, or making messes out of articles. Better then to change the template to include a (very) short instruction; that it's fine to remove both template and (empty) section if its' been there for a long while, for example (making the template a bit of a clean-up template too). In short, I can support removing the template, but the reason given is weak. CapnZapp (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for this template 15:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
  • Keep As I see it (though admittedly, I rarely see it used) this template is good in two ways. First, it allows individual wikiprojects to create consistent skeletons for their attended articles, and identify sections that are compelling for inclusion. Second, it is a visually significant marker encouraging editors to add to wikipedia, which is a good thing. You could just enter it in text, but that would be less visually significant, and most editors aren't going to go to the trouble of creating a pretty box like the template does. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it even deters from the creation of further information. It makes it seem more like a chore. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 17:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you want to improve an article, then add actual content! These templates are nothing but an annoyance.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Tenmei (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...Why? Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete articles should not have empty sections—it makes the encyclopedia look like a construction zone. If an editor feels the need to create a section without content (which I actually have a problem seeing why anyone would want to do in the first place), they can place it within a hidden comment. This template encourages inappropriate editing. Arsenikk (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How will deleting this template help anything? It will take unfinished articles and give them a bunch of redlinks. Is that honeslty an improvement over what we have now? —Soap— 11:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummm, the expectation is that upon closing a system will be put in place to remove the current transclusions. That's, like, what always happens when a template is deleted? And how deleting it will help is by not encouraging people to start articles full of empty headers, or add dozens of headers to half-finished articles and make it appear that future editors are forced to work within that framework. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but use sparingly. It is useful on some articles which all follow a similar format. If deleted, replace with expand section. I think of this as being a sort of 'subclass' of expand section. I also think that as a matter of policy we should be leaning more towards section tags rather than article cleanup templates, and that deleting this is incompatible with a higher focus on section cleanup templates. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as it may be useful by topics, where it is well known that some subsection should be included, but for a number of reasons (such as not understanding local language) it is next to impossible to expand the section. The template encourages those who may be able to contribute to do so.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any empty section should just be deleted. If anyone finds any information, they can recreate the section. It does not make sense to have an empty section in most cases. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this template is necessary. If the section is empty just leave it blank until content is added. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Leaving sections blank with no explanation could be confusing to some users (is the section collapsed, is there a way to expand it?), leaving empty section headings as comments seems potentially confusing, and I still feel that creating empty section headings that you intend to fill later (or hope that someone will feel later) can be useful. I agree that having too much of them can be a barrier, but I think that this template can still serve a purpose. --a3_nm (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with A3 nm and other editors that the template is at least potentially helpful. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Encourages incomplete articles, not that there's anything wrong with incomplete articles. As a reader, I find them annoying and feel why even have the section there in the first place. Those who find it useful can replace it with the "expand" tag, as it can be used for underwritten or empty sections. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gone. Somebody has to make a decision, so I did. Please do not revert without adding content.Lahaun (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not Gone. I don't think the deletion process works this way, and it doesn't appear that the template has actually been deleted...--Taylornate (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Keep, Keep!. It is important to keep this template. If it is inapproprioately used here & there, it can be removed locally. But many articles clearly need sections that a perceptive, but passing, editor cannot provide.... 69.255.153.126 (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This tag is very useful, especially when trying to restructure contentious articles or organize content in articles covering developing events. It shows concerned readers that the area the empty section may cover is being considered, especially if there are ongoing WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP or WP:NPV concerns and it also helps direct editors to the appropriate place to deposit new information. Hiding the section does not encourage "non-elite" editors to add information to the article. Veriss (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can see there are wrong places to put this, but it is a useful placeholder. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In reply to this oft expressed train of thought (not directly in reply to User:Markhurd): I don't understand that utility of "placeholders". can someone here actualyl explain the reason that adding a placeholder would be a good thing?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well List of programming languages#0-9 got me here and I also found List of computer scientists#Q after quickly looking for expected examples. At worst, this template is a form of "This space is intentionally left blank". Mark Hurd (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's one of the thousands of examples of how this template is used, but it doesn't answer the question. Why is adding the 0-9 section with nothing more than {{Empty section}} in it (as you said, putting in a "This space is intentionally left blank" area) preferable to not having the section there at all? Wikipedia is an electronic resource, which means that we don't have the problems that Intentionally blank page is used to help with in the print world (it's primary purpose is to ensure that those reading a document don't think that there was a printing error).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Which begs the question, if there are no known programming languages with a name that starts with a number why do we need a section for it? I can very remotely see the use for some placeholders, when it is likely to be replaced by actual content, but when the section might quite possibly never have any content I see less use for it than none at all. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{expand section}} is ok but use of this template is a mess ive come across articles with tons of this template. Its totally inappropriate. 11:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
  • Delete as useless, like most "expand" themed templates. If the section is empty, then the solution is to delete the section heading, or at least comment it out. Of course, this profoundly useless template will be kept, like so much other useless shit (templates, categories, users, et al) at Wikipedia. Miracle Pen (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Very useful for indicating important topics that are missing from the article. For instance, in the article Crow, there is no information on the physical description of the crow, nor is there information on their diet. Both of these are critical, and creating empty sections is very useful to indicate that they are missing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sections should not be forced within an article. If someone wants a section so badly, they need to take the time to write one themselves. Any sections thought to be helpful for expanding an article and for helping the reader to understand can be suggested on a talk page or even kept track of on a to-do list (sub-page or talk page). This tag is otherwise unsightly and gives the appearance of an article under construction when it could very well not be under construction. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just encountered this template on a non-stub article about a film which had no plot section. It is entirely correct to bring that to the attention of possible contributors. When people find such a template where they don't think it belongs they can argue thatr on that page. There is no justification for deleting the template itself rather than the specific instance. μηδείς (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but change the wording. I use it at List of Los Angeles municipal election returns to populate the Table of Contents (otherwise the table looks incomplete). I would add the words "If you disagree, you may delete this template, but please explain on the Discussion Page." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I think it's good for sections which have sub-sections, which are filled, but with no intro for the main section. (See example: Pee Dee.)  Adam mugliston  Talk  19:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is exactly not the correct use for it. Main sections should just have subsections of lower level. I edited the article to look like this. No such user (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sigh. If there's a section with nothing in it, why do you need a template to point out the blindingly obvious? The template is redundant to {{expand section}} anyway. Miracle Pen (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's good that we distinguish completely empty section from sections with some info. It helps willing editors to add information. The template is not to just state the obvious but to help editors track these pages and add info on them. Our biggest problem till now is that we have many taggers but the instructions they give are not specific because usually they just add a tag but do not bother leave a comment in the talk page. Merging with "Expand section" will only result in mixing two similar but not equal problems. IF a section has some data "expand section" does not make clear what is missing and when the data is enough to remove it. Empty section gives clear instructions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have to disagree there. Although {{empty section}}'s instructions are clear, they don't say anything that isn't already self-evident. As for not leaving comments, "empty section" has no parameter to be able to add comments, unlike {{expand section}}, which does. In that respect, "expand section" is more user-friendly to both tagger and future editor in that a comment may be added more easily, and to the location in the prose to which the comment refers. LordVetinari 15:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it helps when someone searches for pages with empty sections using What transcludes {{Empty section}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not typically how one tracks article cleanup: cleanup tags are supposed to manually categorise the pages they're transcluded onto. That this template just dumps them into Category:All articles to be expanded (near enough a hundred thousand pages, and that's after {{expand}} was deleted!) suggests that a sweeping-style workflow was never really thought out for this template. At the very least, should it be kept the template should recategorise into a more specialist cleanup category (Category:articles with empty sections, presumably). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template does not give any information that is not blatantly obvious. Even if you wish to have an empty section in an article (which should be a blockable offense imo) there is still no reason to add this template. Yoenit (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see another problem here: there are two opinions among those in favour of deleting this template: Those who think we don't need any tag for the section and those who think we should use "expand section" instead. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two have different purposes. I am not opposed to tagging short, existing sections for expansion if, relative the the rest of the existing article, a given topic doesn't have enough detail in it relative to its importance. What I am opposed to is a template which positively encourages people to create blank sections, and en masse from the looks of how it's been used. Articles should grow organically and have headers added as they grow, rather than growing outwards from preexisting headers. For the time being, it is no loss if existing transclusions are simply deleted, as an empty section invites content to be added to it implicitly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with most of what you say. "Empty section" should not always imply "add information here". The editor can change the section name or even delete the empty section. I am just saying that the tag is useful to spot the various cases and act properly. I think his should be in the documentation of the template. I would also expect that articles that follow a pattern of section names should state that in their talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles look ugly and unprofessional when sections are added without any content, and per Jimp, they can be commented out anyway to preserve the skeleton so the template's only function is to magnify the missing parts. The fact that commenting out empty sections will only reveal the article skeleton to people who bother to click the edit button is a good thing, 99% of our readers have no interest in editing, and they should not be presented with tags of this nature. I strongly agree that {{expand section}} is a useful and less intrusive template, because it also gives fair warning to readers that the content is not comprehensive (much like the tags we put on stub pages), but blank sections are no better than blank pages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword, as below. Why tag an empty section? Anyone can see it is empty. Leave the section header if you think it is likely to soon have content added. Remove it if you don't - anyone can recreate it easily enough. Or add some content, best of all. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you detect pages with empty sections to fix? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template puts the articles in the >80k large category Category:All articles to be expanded (and also by month Category:Articles to be expanded). I doubt anyone actually uses the category to find articles to fix, it's far to unspecific. I know of {{Television needs response section}} (and other television related templates), that achieves the same thing (requesting new section to be made or need for expansion), but is far more specific and it is a talk page template so it doesn't interfere with the article itself. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose someone could develop a bot to periodically scan all articles and make a list of ones with empty sections. That would be more efficient and accurate than doing it by hand, and visually less jarring. But as Xeworlebi says, would anyone use the list? It could be more useful if the bot segregated the articles by some sort of "main category", whatever that means. Perhaps if the bot kept track of the date when the empty section was added, editors could work through sections that have been empty for years, removing them. Or the bot could. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are many situations when it can be used, such as stated above where it puts it in a category to gather help. If you don't like the template, then don't use it. But stop deleting all these highly used templates when a lot of people use them for good. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:00, 21 June 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:Duncan Jones 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) 02:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Duncan Jones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links only three articles. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete, the two films are very good ones, and there is reason to believe that more will be made. however, there are only two films, so we can probably let this go for now. Frietjes (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete two good films don't really need a navbox, when he has a few more then reincarnating this is a no-brainer. Bob House 884 (talk) 22:32, 18 June 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:Deceased Famous Singers in Hong Kong 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) 02:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deceased Famous Singers in Hong Kong (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Criteria seems to be based soley on postage stamps released in honor of these deceased singers, but really this could be an never-ending list. Maybe listify, but there is no need for this template. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Yikes. Is this supposed to be dead singers who were famous in Hong Kong, dead famous singers who are buried in Hong Kong, or something else entirely? Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective inclusion criteriaCurb Chain (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective, trivial, WP:NENAN. Resolute 01:20, 14 June 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:Long talk 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 to Template:Archiveme. JPG-GR (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. We don't generally use cleanup tags in talkspace anyway, at least not to refer to the discussions themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first glance, the template appears useful. However, it seems pointless that one would have to open a large page to see a notification that the page may take a while to open. Also seems redundant as most of the largest pages are regularly archived. A dearth of transclusions is also a significant point in favour of deletion. LordVetinari 14:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep long pages on talk pages cause the same problems as long articles do. Pages that are two long hang, are hard to save discussion points on, and crash browsers. Since talk pages are there to be edited, this causes bigger problems than on articles, where most people read but do not edit them. If someone does not know how to archive a talk page, placing this on it will suggest to those who do, to archive it. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unused. We don't keep cleanup templates around for hypothetical problems, and we've never widely used cleanup tags to refer to talk pages themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cleanup tags should be unused, since things are supposed to get cleaned up. As people seem to frequently go around archiving talk pages when requested (at least in my experience), it seems as though this one should be rarely used, and quickly untagged when the pages are archived. It's also not a hypothetical problem, since it does crop up (overly long talk pages, that no one bothered to archive yet). 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unused- doesn't seem to have any function other than to warn somebody after its (probably) already too late. 22:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:archiveme - does essentially the same thing and, as mentioned above, the extra info here is after the horse has bolted. (Otherwise I'd be a keep -- maintenance tags should be unused.) Mark Hurd (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this solution, as well.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine by me as well. That template doesn't pretend to be a regular cleanup tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Template:archivemeI was a keep until I saw the alternative of Template:archiveme which I have already used on a talk page. I don't know how the inner workings of the templates and hidden groups work, does it flag the talk page as needing assistance in setting up an archival routine? If so, Template:archiveme is a double win. Veriss (talk) 06:51, 20 June 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:Chronological talk archive 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 conversion as discussed. JPG-GR (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chronological talk archive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fork of {{talk archive}} whose only extra feature is the provision of a date range parameter. That could (and should) be added to the existing template; once that's done, this template can be subclassed to {{talk archive}} temporarily, then substituted and deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - as the creator of the template, I'm OK with deleting it after the work proposed by thumperward has been done. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that {{talk archive/sandbox}} now implements this, so we're good to go here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:52, 17 June 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:Clock Archives 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) 04:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clock Archives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Exactly one transclusion on a long-gone user's talk archive. An anon apparently broke the time code two years ago and nobody's cared to notice, so I doubt this has been looked at at all since then. Doesn't do anything except float the TOC and add the current time and date; can easily be (fixed and) substituted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If no one's noticed it in two years of existence, then I doubt they'll notice it after two years of absence. LordVetinari 14:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be useful. Good work on finding this template; sometimes I'm amazed that such obscure pages get noticed at all. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for this. JIMp talk·cont 00:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with leaving this around -- someone else might use it. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. It is precisely because someone might use it (as opposed to, I don't know, using a non-broken template which serves some productive purpose instead?) that it's been nominated for deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:41, 20 June 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:LBO Music Arts 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) 02:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LBO Music Arts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Of the four pages to which this navbar links, two are redlinks and the other two are redirects to the main article, Lake Braddock Secondary School. Template is not employed in any useful fashion but doesn't fulfil all of T3. LordVetinari 08:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, useless to have a navbox with nothing but section links for the main article. Frietjes (talk) 22:10, 13 June 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:Turn A Gundam 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) 05:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Turn A Gundam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates four articles. WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk) 06:40, 13 June 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:Diagram needed 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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diagram needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
 
This is the image {{diagram needed}} adds to an article.

Proposing this template be redirected to {{reqdiagram}}, as that template follows Wikipedia standards for requested media templates. {{reqdiagram}} is designed for use on talk pages (and as such uses {{tmbox}}), whereas {{diagram needed}} is (ostensibly) for use in articles. However, only 6 of {{diagram needed}}'s 37 transclusions are actually in article namespace and most are just on talk pages. Since {{diagram needed}} just adds a file and the text "a diagram is needed in this article", it displays inline, which will mess up how the other templates in the talk header display. {{reqdiagram}}, however, displays just like all the other talk page header templates (and it has several links, such as to Wikipedia:Uploading images, etc.).

I'm don't think this template should be deleted (as it isn't really doing harm), but it should be redirected to {{reqdiagram}} per the reasons above (also to minimize confusion between the two templates). The edit history can stand as it is.

Oh and if the outcome of this is redirect, then all transclusions of this template in article space need to be removed first before redirecting. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all transclusions in articles and redirect. I wholeheartedly agree with all of the nom's reasons. This template is nonstandard and unfriendly, and its purpose is better served by {{reqdiagram}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:42, 13 June 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:Poor English 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 with {{copyedit}} and then delete. JPG-GR (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poor English (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Essentially duplicates Template:Copy edit. Anthem 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The Poor English template can be used for severe cases where the English is so poor that you can't tell what the person was trying to say -- it takes more than just copy editing to fix that. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the content is incomprehensible, it should just be deleted. --Anthem 20:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or a request for translation.Curb Chain (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't want to tag a page in another language with this template, for obvious reasons.Anthem 12:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Admittedly, I never knew this template existed before, but I think it's worth retaining. Denoting something is written in "poor English" instead of just needing general copy edit work I think can be useful; I can think of several instances where I could not decipher what someone was trying to say while editing and fixing articles. Some people just cannot write, I suppose. Alternatively, adding a "poor English" parameter to {{Copy edit}} could also serve this purpose, so I would not object to a possible merging. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an instance of a situation in which the English in the article was so bad that you couldn't understand what it meant, but you could correct it/the content was useful ? I simply can't see an application of this template. Anthem 12:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand why we need this, it makes it sounds more like an attack on previous editors for their editing and writing skills than as an actual helpful tool. If I'm going through articles I'm more apt to use "copy edit" rather than a "poor English" template that could very easily be taken the wrong way by other editors. Nate • (chatter) 18:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or redirect, the "copy edit" template achieves the same goal and doesn't seem as confrontational. Frietjes (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per Auntof6 (I wouldn't consider trying to write an article in French, even though I can understand and speak a little. The tag is not a personal attack, it's a means for getting other editors from the same project to get to work.) --Sreifa (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Poor English template can be thought as used independently rather than being thought as being related to copyediting because some articles may require a rewrite over a standard copyedit. --Longbyte1 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. {{copy edit}} is sufficient. If clarification is needed, that is what edit summaries, talk pages, User talk pages, WikiProjects and all the other communication tools are for. LordVetinari 08:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Purpose better served by {{copy edit}}, as a copy edit is what is needed to clean up the poor English. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. Loaded language alone is a reason to get rid of this; in cases where text is so unclear as to be completely incomprehensible the correct approach is to delete it, not to leave it sitting around indefinitely under a badge of shame. A redirect to {{copyedit}} is the low-cost answer here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with copyedit template and delete. Yes, they're different things; however, there are only two things that should be done with poorly-written text, and they're correction and removal. The copyedit template serves the purpose of saying "This can be cleaned up; will you please help?", so it should be applied when the text can be cleaned; if it's past the point of cleaning, removal is the only valid option, and it takes no more effort to remove the text than to add the template. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with copyedit template and delete. There's no need to be rude about it just note that the page needs work. JIMp talk·cont 00:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [1]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get the feeling that this was relisted so that someone could do some canvassing? --Sreifa (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you're implying that the latecomers were canvassed to opine for this template's deletion, I think you need to adjust your good-faith-detection apparatus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an apparatus, I just know what I see. --Sreifa (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then retract it. I won't be accused of having turned up on request at a TfD on no evidence just because you're not getting your way in the discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example of something that obviously needs cleanup, but I can't do it, because I don't completely understand what the original contributor was trying to say; Plato von Ustinov.--Sreifa (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the sentence structure more closely resembles an eighteenth-century legal document than an encyclopedia entry, on a sentence-by-sentence basis that article seems easy enough to decipher. {{copyedit}} is perfectly okay there and doesn't carry a tone of disdain for the original author. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with copyedit template and delete. Per Nyttend. Veriss (talk) 17:54, 18 June 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_June_13&oldid=1138695208"