Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 8

March 8

Template:Shree Harikul

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by Ponyo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Shree Harikul (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used at Shree Harikul, and has no scope to be used elsewhere. I'd argue this is unnecessary detail to even be included in the article, particularly without any references, but it's definitely too specific for a template. —me_and 16:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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).

Template:TED

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Template:TED (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{TED speaker}} and {{TED talk}}; I have replaced all instances with one or the other. It is better to split such functionality over two templates, so that they may in future be populated from Wikidata. [Note: I am Wikipedian in Residence at TED.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. The replacement templates do a better job. Rupert Clayton (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment since it is a more general template, it can be used to link to many more pages than the supposed replacement templates, which are restricted to two particular page sets. The new templates cannot be used to link to ted.com/topics pages, for instance, which the old template explicitly says it is to be used for -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • However it was not being used for any such links. In the unlikely event that a /topics/ template is needed, I'll be happy to create it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant per nom —PC-XT+ 18:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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).

Template:Research help

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 08:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Research help (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is being added to content namespaces (mainly, our article space), while it is not aiming at an improvement in the article. It is however not content, this is a meta-tag for the article and does not belong on Wikipedia, especially not in articles/content. For use outside of content space (say, on talk space of articles) it can be incorporated into the project-specific templates for projects that appear to be interested in this (at the moment, Military History, and Medicine), or other solutions for Wikipedia-space. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC) (adapted, misinterpreted 'Wikipedia Space' to be the WikiProject. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC))

• Should be on the talk pages, not the content page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye7: Well, actually, not even on the talk pages (if you blanket add it there in the header it 'gets lost', and/or gets onto pages with WikiProjects that have not shown support for this yet). This may belong in the 'tools' section in the interface. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

    Sounds reasonable to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

    • I agree, the tools section would be the best placement, if kept. Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I also agree. I'm pretty new but I don't think the placement of this template is appropriate. Navyvet2016 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree. When it is sprinkled so liberally across articles, it loses all meaning. It's rather like the phenomenon of excessive, banal warning labels on consumer products: Soon it gets ignored. --Yaush (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I concur that this information should appear elsewhere. Article space is for content. The purpose seems to be to tell readers how to incorporate information from Wikipedia into their project rather than how to do academic research on Wikipedia itself (which is what I initially took it to mean). The advice given is entirely generic and doesn't relate to the article itself at all. A dedicated link in the content area of each article is not in my view a good way to get a general message across. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• At present the template does not seem to display anything at all, so it is difficult to make a reasonable comment about it. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have hidden the template (and the TfD notice) from the 10,000+ pages it was shown on, and have (now) added the look of the template to the template page (from the "documentation" page) so that people can see what the template looked like. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Is that how it is supposed to display? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
      • yes, at the top of the reference section (normally) you get the blue text and the big blue circle question mark. Fram (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Hi @Fram:: I appreciate no-including the discussion template, but I have made sure the template proper still displays -- we are in the midst of a pilot, approved by a number of groups, for limited period of time so that we can have a larger discussion and so that we can have basic date informed decision making during a wider conversation. See Wikipedia: Research help/Proposal. If there emerges a consensus to delete here, I would be happy to blank at that time (we also have support from the bot operator who added it, to remove the template -- when and if consensus says we should), Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
          • And I've reverted you. There is a quite clear consensus here from everyone but WMF people (no matter which account they happen to use here). There are already more people opposed to it here than you had people agreeing to the trial at the Med project, and this is opposition based on the actual result, not on a vague request. Fram (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
            • This does not look like consensus to me. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
              • @Fram: Just to note—I've been a Wikipedian and supporter of the Wiki Library for long before I or it joined the WMF. My edits and thoughts here are mine and mine alone. To describe them as belonging to the WMF is a bunch of malarkey. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
        • No blue text that I can see, only a fairly small question mark icon. I still can't see what the fuss is all about, literally and figuratively. From where I am this looks like knee-jerk over-reaction verging on censorship, but how can I tell without being able to see the problem for myself? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
          • I still have not been able to see the allegedly offensive template display. @Fram:, please ensure that is displaying correctly somewhere and put in a link on this page, clearly labeled as such, so that we can see what it is that we are discussing. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
            • Basically, you are arguing about a template you haven't seen, even though it is there to see for everyone else (and was at the time of your post above, and has been at the actual template page all along?) I think your !vote can safely be discarded by whoever closes this as being sufficiently uninformed. Fram (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remove from article space. It doesn't belong. Scolaire (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep C'mon guys, this has been discussed and approved repeatedly. It's for a one-month test that started a week ago. Did any of you read WT:Research help and its FAQ? (The FAQ has links to four major discussions, including BRFA.)
  As for the perennial "let's put it in the sidebar" idea, please remember that MediaWiki:Sidebar simply does not exist for almost half of readers. Even if we pretend that typical readers actually look there (they don't), 45% of page views happen on mobile, where the sidebar doesn't exist. "Let's put it in the sidebar" means "Let's make it completely invisible for half of users". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  Consensus for the addition is mentioned on the faq, but the faq doesn't discuss how small the voting numbers were - only 6 support votes in one discussion and 14 in the other. AStinson chose not to have a full discussion of the proposal on Village Pump, instead adding a brief note with a link to 2 project pages. None of this suggests that the community as a whole had a thorough discussion of this unusual template prior to rollout.Dialectric (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  Hi @Dialectric: I didn't want to split the conversations in multiple places, hence why I invited people to participate in the discussions. Moreover, we are collecting data for a larger conversation beyond this relatively small (and limited topically) pilot. One of the design outcomes, was understanding how different audiences respond to the template -- and we are learning a lot about those different audiences, medical readers seem much more interested in the link/page. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @WhatamIdoing: Noting that you are an editor who is also working for the WMF, albeit here commenting on their own account. Approved repeatedly ... within selected communities with limited !voting. Moreover, this does not address the concern: how does this help in improving the article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Let's note instead, and far more relevantly, that I've been a core member of WPMED, one of the two groups that follows the affected pages, for almost ten years now. The answer to your question is: The template might help readers understand the article and its sources, it might help editors understand readers' needs about sources, and it might help readers figure out the difference between quackery that has an essentially decorative blue clicky number after it and quackery that's described according to the mainstream academic position – and the only way to actually find out whether those "mights" actually happen is to leave it alone for a month. Surely actually knowing these answers would be highly preferable to just guessing (especially just guessing what typical readers understand, based upon what highly atypical editors think they ought to understand). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
      • @WhatamIdoing: OK, so the tag is not aimed at improving the article, it is aimed at improving the reader's understanding of the article. I guess that confirms my concern. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Are you equally concerned about efforts to provide open-access sources? Because that effort is also aimed at "improving the reader's understanding" rather than "improving the article". A technically brilliant article that nobody understands is a failure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
          • If a reader would encounter such an article, wouldn't they tag it as {{technical}}? That is tagging with an aim to improve the article. And I could support a notice on each page that would make editors add such a tag if they do not understand the article. But this way of meta-tagging is not the way of getting that effect, nor is it aiming at that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
          • Do note, that I am active in improving the reliability of the data that is shown on Wikipedia, and am active in trying to show, in content space, what data can be trusted and what may not be trustworthy. That is an effort that goes further than providing references to show that data is reliable (one would still need to check EVERY TIME whether the Wikipedia text is supported by the references - what this project is suggesting to do), it shows which data is reliable. I think that that shows that I am not equally concerned about efforts to provide open-access sources, I am concerned about efforts to provide reliable open-access sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Well meaning clutter that does not contribute to the reader's understanding of the article. I read Wikipedia: Research help/Proposal and I'm still not sure what the objective is: to make our readers better researchers? That's surely outside our remit. To help the reader find more information on the topic? In that case it belongs under Further reading or in the navigation template on the broad topic. But the proposal keeps talking about attracting experts to edit; I don't see how this contributes to that aim at all. "Tools" would seem to cover what it is, if it's thought to be useful. (And I'm sorry if mobile readers can't see the sidebar, but that's the downside of reading an encyclopedia on a tiny screen.) I'm not seeing a clear rationale for it to be in the article, certainly not at the top of the references. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for at least window of trial per Wikipedia: Research help/Proposal. We have a rather endemic and well documented issue of readers both a) not understanding how Wikipedia is made, b) wanting to understand Wikipedia's credibility, and/or deal with the perception that its not credible, and c) a very large and well documented critique from professionals that teach all level of learner (from elementary to university and public library patrons) that our readers, simply don't know how to use Wikipedia successfully. As WhatAmIDoing points out the sidebar does not meet many of our readers who are now on mobile (and our mission is sharing knowledge with all of our readers). We just added the template to our last batch of articles-- can we at least preserve it for 2-4 weeks in order to collect data, to better help our community make an informed decision about both this template and/or other ways of improving literacy amongst our readers. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have reverted your change at the template. If the TfD decides to keep the template (for a short while or without conditions), then you can continue to collect data through it. If not, tough luck. Perhaps do that thing that the WMF has promised, oh, a dozen times by now, and have this experiment somewhere else than on enwiki? We have a few hundred sister sites, some of them quite large, who haven't been the first testing ground for a new WMF idea over and over again. Fram (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Why would English Wikipedia projects want to test something on another language Wikipedia? Can you imagine how you would respond if French or German Wikipedians decided to try an experiment on EN:? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
      • This was created by a WMF'er (with the WMF account) and is a problem that affects every Wikipedia version, not just enwiki. A solution would be good (or bad) for every version. (With "this" I mean Wikipedia:Research help, Wikipedia:Research help/Proposal and Template:Research help). Fram (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
        • It was coded by a person with the required skills, who happens to also be employed by WMF at the request of (at least two) English Wikipedia projects, to address a problem on English Wikipedia. This information is implicit in the discussions leading up to the creation and deployment of the template, which I still have not seen displayed, so I still cannot make an informed decision on whether it is good, bad, ugly or none of the above. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
          • Your post is contradicted by all the available evidence. I have posted links supporting my position. Please provide anything that supports yours, or drop it. If you still can't see the template, then either there is a serious technical problem (with the template or at your side), or you lack the skills necessary to participate in this discussion. Go to the template page, use "what links here", go to one of the 10,000+ pages you'll find there, and scroll to the references section. Fram (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Astinson (WMF): Noting that this is an involved editor. This does not address the concern: how does this help in improving the article? I have an additional question for you as one of the people initiating this idea. How come that something that is going to be plastered on thousands of different articles, involving several different WikiProjects (some articles do belong to several independent WikiProjects, though the base choice is that should belong to at least a subset of 2 - e.g. John Brown is not only (and apparently not even mainly) military, he is also in the Pennsylvania and College football) is not first discussed on a wider forum, say the Village Pump? This involves more than just the editors/readers of the two involved WikiProjects, and they see it plastered over all 'their' articles as well. Why did you not first seek a wider consensus? I guess that several editors here can exactly what this makes me think of when we are talking 'implementations' and 'WMF people'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep for the agreed-upon pilot: It's worth studying whether this is helpful—and if it's not, now we'll all know that for the future. This does not actively hurt anyone and consensus has been obtained at various WikiProjects. (volunteer edit) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @The ed17: Noting that you are an editor who is also working for the WMF, albeit here commenting on their own account. This does not address the concern: how does this help in improving the article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Beetstra: Personally, I don't know if it'll help the articles in question. That's one thing Astinson (WMF) and company are attempting to study! On the WMF, as I said above: I've been a Wikipedian and supporter of the Wiki Library for long before I or it joined the WMF. My edits and thoughts here are mine and mine alone; my personal views very frequently differ from the WMF's official lines. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Beetstra: Also, please stop badgering !voters with a copy/pasted reply. Thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
      • @The ed17: I copy pasted the replies to editors who came with copy-pasted 'Keep for the agreed-upon pilot' without addressing the concern: how does this improve the article? You, apparently, do not know the answer to that question either, and that is what I here hope to discuss on a wider visible forum. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
        • @Beetstra: This is not the forum for the conversation you desire. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
          • @The ed17: I thought that this was the forum to discuss the use and application of a template where someone has shown concerns that it is not according to guidelines ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
            • That's like saying AfD is a forum for discussing articles. These pages are for discussing whether or not it should be deleted. I dunno, we may have to agree to disagree in our interpretations. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
              • AfD is "Articles for Deletion". TfD is "Templates for Discussion". Fram (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
                • Obviously. I'm saying that today they have the same purpose regardless of name. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
                  • Regardless of the purpose of 'Articles for Deletion' - the outcomes are sometimes different than 'keep' or 'delete'. Here the situation is the same, there could be other outcomes besides 'keep' or 'delete', and there is certainly support for those, and except for the 'it is a trial, leave it' no significant opposition against those arguments (but I'd rather see somebody independent make that call). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for the agreed-upon pilot but I hope the takeaway for the people running the project, is that it would have been useful to them to put more effort into informing the WikiProjects affected (and maybe even first placing a note by bot on the Talk pages of the articles that would be affected, identifying the project and the prior discussions) and letting folks know what they were doing. I was taken by surprise by the implementation of the 2nd phase where the bot was given permission to place the template on 10K articles, 5K each in MIL and MED. The way to build goodwill and consensus is not to blow past "initial resistance" but work a bit harder to communicate. I know that dealing with the editing community is like herding cats, but more communication could have helped prevent the move to block the bot and delete the template. I am sorry for this trouble. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog: There was very little, if any, initial resistance? See, for example, this. I'd never dispute the notion that more communication is better, but I wonder how WikiLib could have communicated "better" in this case without spamming. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Your response expresses to me no interest in what I actually said, so I am not responding as it appears to be pointless. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
      • @Jytdog: Of course I'm interested in what you said or I wouldn't have replied. :-) I'm wondering if you have ideas beyond messaging every article talk page, as I worry that that would be seen as spamming. Clearly the WMF staffers involved are watching the page, and I'm sure they'd love ideas to avoid a similar situation to this in the future(!). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Thanks for replying. My comments were directed to the 2nd phase, not the 1st phase. I was on a wikibreak in November and missed the 1st consultation, and folks at WT:MED kindly informed me of that prior checkin when I asked there. What I suggested was before this 2nd phase, it would probably have behooved the folks running this to 1) inform folks at the relevant WikiProjects that a 2nd, bot-driven wider phase was kicking in, and yes, consider placing a notice on the Talk page of relevant articles. I cannot imagine folks would object to that (you may have more experience with people considering that "spamming" but I would be surprised.) But communicating too much is better, in my view, than under-communicating. Under communicating leads to... well this. Maybe overcommunicating would have just led to delay and yet more discussion. I don't know. But that is life in a herd of cats....Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Not everyone watches the talk pages of 2 out of hundreds or thousands of WikiProjects. Did anyone ask the other WikiProjects that also help to maintain these articles? I looked at several and saw no evidence of support from them. Changes/decisions like this should be posted in a central place that all have access to comment on. Especially when the links being added have nothing to do with improving that article. Add them to the talk page, add them to the left hand nav menu...or do not add them. They do not belong in the article. Navyvet2016 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Hi Navyvet, I see your account was created today. Have you been editing anonymously up to now? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog: This does not address the concern: how does this help in improving the article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi Beetstra - we meet again, and so soon! This template is not about article content - nobody will have any answer for you, if that is your sole concern. There are other answers as to why this is useful to the project, but perhaps those are not of interest to you with respect to this template? btw, you pinged me below, where you meant to ping RexxS. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I am glad that you share my concern that no-one can tell me how this tag improves article content. If you want to know how readers interpret an article then you should, I don't know, maybe ask them. Many sites pop up with a 'questionaire' window when you go there and read a page. I am sure that that can be done on Wikipedia as well, aiming at people who leave a page that they did not edit? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
        • My gut reaction to this tag was negative too, and when I saw it the first time in Phase I, I went to WT:MED and asked what was up with this. I did the same thing when I saw with some alarm that it was getting botted into a much bigger set of articles. The center of that reaction was "this is not content", which I think is the center of yours too. You've made reference here to other sorts of non-content tags that have been put on articles in the past, and I reckon your experience with those is informing your response here. I am not aware of those tags or issues around them. When I thought about the responses I got at WT:MED and looked at the discussions that led to the tag being placed - I had a couple of thoughts. First, those discussions were pretty small and consensus was not crazy strong. This is the most robust/well attended discussion that has happened. The other was, "hm". Our mission is about making knowledge available to the public. Knowledge is something you earn, by doing research; even the best Wikipedia articles are only gateways to more knowledge, via the references. A pilot to see if we can help readers find their way into deeper knowledge is not a bad thing to me, and is aligned with our mission. On top of that, the tag is pretty unobtrusive, and in the right place to catch someone's eye who has already made the move to look at the references, catching the people who may well want to learn. So I am OK with the pilot. It will need to produce robust results to justify maintaining the tags that exist and adding more. I don't know if they did the math on how many trial subjects they needed in order to get statistically significant results so they even had a chance of getting a robust result, but 10K is not unreasonable to me. This is why I !voted as I did here. I don't reckon you will agree, but i hope you understand. If there is some flaw in what I've written, I am open to hearing about that. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
          • Thanks @Jytdog: This explains alot of our reasoning, and highlights just how complicated this issue is. We didn't set strong numerical threshholds of success, because we recognized that this is both a) new and b) different. Our main purpose for the data, was to get a baseline on how such a link would engage readers, and to understand if different types of articles have different kinds of impact (which initial pageviews, before the blanking of the template suggests that Medical articles have a higher user engagment). With this baseline, we can do other things (like do a pilot in the left hand bar, or in the Reference Tooltips). With these, we can understand more about per average article referrals to the page, over any given amount of time. I look forward to seeing more thoughts and opinions Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for the pilot project, discuss after the results are in. Then fix if needed, discard if not useful. As far as I can make out this project is from grassroots Wikipedia projects, and any input from WMF was technical assistance. If I get it right, the template is added to articles within the scope of those projects, and possibly by other independent Wikipedians to other projects, as Wikipedians do. Who can stop them? Anyone can edit etc... If an article happens to be "owned" by more than one project, it may happen that the other projects didn't know about it. It is an experiment, chill. It may be useful, who can tell without trying it to see? The format and position can be adjusted depending on outcomes, but it no-one ever tries anything nothing gets any better. And now we can't even see what the fuss is all about, which is not helping. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • +1 --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Pbsouthwood: This does not address the concern: how does this help in improving the article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Anything which makes an article more useful to the reader may be construed as improving the article in terms of the purpose of Wikipedia.
    • It is experimental. The experiment has only just started and already it has been derailed. Without running the experiment it is difficult to guess how it may improve the utility of the article to the reader.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for the agreed-upon pilot per reasons above(based on results fix/adjust )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ozzie10aaaa: This does not address the concern: how does this help in improving the article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

while it is not aiming at an improvement in the article. It is however not content, this is a meta-tag for the article and does not belong on Wikipedia, especially not in articles/content[1] I disagree w/ this statement as I believe the reader benefits, (again its a trial period)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: You think that something is an improvement to an article if a reader benefits? How does the reader benefit from reading the contents of the linked page after reading Autism, where the content of the article is not improved, and no suggestions to improve the article are made. The reader is here for information, and the reader understands what they can do with the contents better. That is not an improvement on the article, it is not even what this tag aims for - but that is what tags in mainspace are for (and even those are argued to not to be efficient in improving the article). It was below mentioned by one of the supporters of the tag even argued that it is unknown whether the reader has problem with understanding what Wikipedia content stands for, yet we try to improve that understanding: a solution in search of a problem?

And if so, this should be a clearly visible overall 'banner' like message. However, it reads 'using Wikipedia for research', where the user is told to look at the reliable references that are used in the article and not the prose, but the only moment that they may encounter the link 'using Wikipedia for research' will be when they actually are getting to the references ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep for the agreed-upon pilot As Peter says, we learn nothing if we don't try, even if the references section may not be the best place for the template. The trial was discussed centrally and approved - I certainly also saw the discussion at WT:MED and think that a four-week trial is perfectly reasonable. It's not as though the plans were only on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard. --RexxS (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @RexxS: This does not address the concern: how does this help in improving the article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Dirk: Your comment appears to be predicated on the assumption that adding article content must always be for the purpose of "improving the article". That is a false assumption because Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. One of the project's goals is to make available our articles' content to as many people as possible (meta:Vision), and we may profitably test ways in which we research what is "effective at driving interest in the page" (from the template documentation). If it turns out that the link to Wikipedia:Research help improves the way readers use Wikipedia, or increases their interest or confidence in, say, medical articles, then we have advanced one of our goals, don't you agree? P.S. if you change the target of a ping without re-signing, the notification doesn't work. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for the agreed-upon pilot per reasons above. Seriously consider moving the link to the sidebar.--KMJKWhite (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @KMJKWhite: This does not address the concern: how does this help in improving the article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep improves Wikipedia linking with other resources. 118.93.65.158 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @118.93.65.158: This does not address the concern: how does this help in improving the article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Weak delete While I understand the reasons for keeping it until the pilot ends, and actually generally agree with them, I don't see my opinion on it changing regardless of the outcome of the pilot, so why delay it? The template, when in article space, is self-referential and directs to a how-to style page that is generic and not related to the actual content. As seen by those guidelines (and the editor push back), there's a widely established consensus that article space is for content, which this is not. I understand the reasoning behind wanting it, and think it is generally a good idea, but this template, and how it is intended to be used, is not in my opinion the best way and seems contrary to established consensus. It's also a link from article space to project space which I just generally think is a bad idea (see WP:CROSS). Wugapodes (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for the agreed-upon pilot as stated above. This is a pilot project, the world won't end, and trialing things is one way to try and improve things around here. Trialing this on a tiny fraction of our articles is a good place to start. I agree a sidebar link is probably the most appropriate place, however as WAID states this is not visible for mobile readers. (Note WP does however have a drop-down menu on mobile). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @LT910001: This does not address the concern: how does this help in improving the article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I would say that the article is improved not only by its content but by how it is communicated to readers. This trial helps improve how an article is communicated, by helping readers understand how to interpret the article in the context of research. It is, I feel, not dissimilar to adding explanatory notes, glossaries, or terminology articles, all of which I've seen done here. @@Beetstra: I see you've copy and pasted this to every editor you disagree with, so I am not sure you will be interested in my reply, but there it is. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, I obviously am interested in the reply - I am asking for something in the nomination in the first place, a question that no-one of the 'Keep for the agreed-upon pilot'-voters addresses. Helping readers understand how to interpret an article could be done with a side-wide banner, or a prominent link in the tools section. I agree that thát is a good thing, but I utterly disagree that this needs to be plastered around Wikipedia in a references section (which most people don't read anyway, and if they go there they go there for the reference that they encountered in the text) or anywhere inside the text itself. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• delete - abuse of article space. Nuisance. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for the agreed-upon pilot - this is hardly urgent so I cannot see the need to delete in the middle of the trial, and it was discussed with the projects involved at any rate. Personally I think we need some sort of template like this anyway, and this idea seems as good as any other to me. Anotherclown (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Anotherclown: This does not address the concern: how does this help in improving the article? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Another hit from the people who invented the tag line "Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun To Be With!" and just as useful as that tagline for spamming across Wikipedia article space. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment by nominator - some say it is an 'experiment' - however, I have the strong feeling/deja vu that this is not the first time that we experiment with this type of tagging in mainspace, and that it is also not the first time that some editors try to take it down. Maybe someone can refresh my memory? Secondly, if we have repeatedly people trying to remove tags that are aiming at article improvement, and tags that are meant to be used in mainspace for article improvement are continuously up for discussion, how do you people think that this 'experiment' is even sensible to try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 03:58, 9 March 2016‎
  • There's no evidence that the many non-content maintenance tags actually lead to article improvement any longer, especially if they sit on the article for more than a week or so. This increasing lack of effect is probably a factor in non-content tags being nominated for deletion more often than they previously were: they are often pointless as well as ugly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • That is a perfect WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. We have no evidence that other tags work, so we try another tag that we don't know whether it works or not. I know that tags aiming at content improvement get (nominated to be) deleted all the time, and now we create tag that is not aiming at content improvement .. And the original question is still open. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for the pilot - as per above. And, Beetstra, do you really have to harass every. single. commenter. here that disagrees with you? You're an admin, you should know better. Let it go, already. - ^theWOLFchild 06:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I second this. Happy to participate in discussion, but not when I'm on the receiving end of a copy and pasted message. I'm disappointed an admin would be doing this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Funny, when we get copy-pasted 'keep for the pilot'-type remarks that all do not address the concerns of why I think that this needs to be deleted. Still awaiting arguments that are not half-baked ad hominim, or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but actually address the concern. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Funny, you're acting as if everyone here owes you an explanation for their !vote. They don't. Most have stated they would like to see the template through to the end of the pilot... that what pilots are for. That should suffice as a reason. It's certainly all you're gonna get from me. - ^theWOLFchild 23:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
        • No, they don't, but I can at least ask whether they have a reason why they think that the tag should be displayed in the way it is, plain in content space. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
          • Why don't you start a discussion on that at Template talk:Research help, instead of hounding everyone here? You specified your reasons for listing this here already and people are !voting on that. You don't need to pester every single person who disagrees with you onto changing their !vote. They looked at the issue and made their decision... that's it. - ^theWOLFchild 20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• To everyone saying "this was discussed with the projects involved": projects don't own articles or the main space: most articles with these tags also "belong" to other projects, which were not contacted, nor was the wider community (hence the quite negative reaction of people not involved with these projects but seeing the tags, which are now again visible for everyone). No indication is given why a 1,000 article trial wouldn't suffice instead of a 10,000+ (if the bot hadn't been stopped, it would have been about 15,000 articles tagged for an unknown length of time). WMF trials tend to be "temporarily" but extremely hard to stop again (it took a few long discussions to end a two-week Flow trial a year later, with one of the WMF-but-not-now people involved here as one of the most outspoken defenders of the WMF trial there as well). Finally, "wait for the results"? Oh, right, the WMF-interpreted shiny-happy results. This from the same people who couldn't create a decent harassment survey and were unable to spot the obvious errors in their results before posting them to the wold? When has a WMF trial ever produced a result that the WMF thought was problematic? Fram (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Excuse me for shouting, but I have mentioned this before, and it has either not been noticed it has been ignored. THIS IS NOT A WMF TRIAL. Please do not pretend that it is for political reasons. Some people who happen to work at WMF have assisted for technical reasons, but the experiment is by fellow editors who are trying to address a perceived problem the way they see as best. If you don't believe me, do your own homework, the evidence is there. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, it is an experiment to get results that we don't even know that we will get, for a problem that we do not even know whether it exists, using a method that has been discussed with two wikiprojects but that has not been widely discussed with the wider public but affecting all of Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • WRONG! It has been noticed and has not been ignored, in fact I posted a reply beneath your statement, but I'll repost it here: "This was created by a WMF'er (with the WMF account) and is a problem that affects every Wikipedia version, not just enwiki. A solution would be good (or bad) for every version. (With "this" I mean Wikipedia:Research help, Wikipedia:Research help/Proposal and Template:Research help)." If you want more evidence, you can see that the proposal was also added to the two Wikiprojects by a WMF account ([2] and [3]). If this isn't a WMF trial, then they surely have done their utmost to make it look like one. Fram (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Peter, Astinson (WMF) appears to have been central to this effort from the beginning, and in large part responsible for all important aspects of it apart from operating the bot. If it is not a WMF project, Astinson should have made a statement to that effect. Please provide the diff that shows this.Dialectric (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Yep, its a pilot by the Wikipedia Library in response to a larger set of concerns raised by the libraries community, and to contributors in the GLAM and Education program efforts. We run a number of such projects that emerge in other spaces, as tests of how to improve research access and support on wiki. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Article space should only contain article contents and article-specific tags. Generic tags, like this one, belong to the side, bottom or top. If that is a problem for mobile, then the mobile design needs to be changed (they did it to add a link to talk pages, which they very stupidly had made inaccessible from mobile; they should do it for e.g. the watchlist, which is useless on mobile). Yes, during the trial, when this is new, you'll get a relatively high click-through rate, which you'll probably translate as "success". But the template will remain on the pages for ever, every page you visit will have it, even though you don't need it any longer every time, it doesn't add anything to the page, doesn't have any article-specific value (unlike e.g. an "unsourced" tag), and will only become more and more annoying. Changing it from a separate template to something included in "reflist" will not help, of course, although that would make it easier to remove it again. Fram (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per the other keepers: don't interrupt a pilot project, and don't use TFD to overturn consensus elsewhere. As noted by the page linked above, this is meant for the online reader who's trying to understand how to use the information provided by the article. The purpose of an encyclopedia being the improvement of the knowledge of the reader, it's quite reasonable to include a tag reminding people of the basics of what that article is, how trustworthy it is, what to do with it, etc. Not something you see in a print encyclopedia, but that's because the hyperlinked page takes up a good deal of space, and wikis aren't paper. To ward off the inevitable question from Dirk Beetstra — it improves the article by making it more useful for the reader. what I here hope to discuss on a wider visible forum Go to the village pump or some similar page to discuss this; XFD isn't a place to create policy. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "Don't use TFD to overturn consensus elsewhere"? Why not? The trial already exceeded the stated limitations (the bot was blocked in mid-action when the number of tagged articles was at 10,500, clearly over the max limit of 10,000 and with no indication that it would stop anytime soon as it was going alphabetically and was at the "J" only). A trial logically can be cut short if it emerges that the initial consensus isn't supported on a wider scale once the results get more visible. A TfD is a good way to gauge consensus for it, it at least reacher a wider audience than those editors who actively edit project pages from two projects only. Having a TfD is not "creating policy", please don't use absurd arguments (or indicate what policy is created here, apart from your templates may not be nominated for deletion during a trial position). This template is not doing what you claim it does and is not intended to the audience you see for it; it does not help one bit to understand how trustworthy article X or Y is, it gives some very general information about how Wikipedia articles are or should be made. WP:PAPER isn't relevant either: screen space is costly as well, and cluttering articles with non-article related tags is an annoying use of the screen. I really don't see how this tag can make any article more useful for the reader. It may make Wikipedia more useful for the reader (debatable, but perhaps for some readers), but that's why it belongs with other Wikipedia-related links, not with article-related links. Fram (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "Don't use TfD to overturn consensus elsewhere - this is something that had a whooping 20 support votes in two projects, but is now affecting all of Wikipedia. And all that all of Wikipedia got was a simple notice with reference to one already archived WikiProject discussion and another WikiProject discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless clutter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete and a question to the "keeps" citing "until the end of the research frame": Would you delete if it weren't a part of a research pilot? Why or why not? The way I see it, the research results from this template cannot meaningfully aid us because the template is not within policy/guideline to begin with. Since it's not, we can't add this template regardless and so the results cannot be used in any meaningful fashion. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Izno: WP:SELFREF is a guideline, not a policy -- which means it can and should be ignored when its the best thing for our project, and the template is currently marked using Template:Selfref to be machine excluded from reuse. Consensus can overrule guidelines, we wanted to collect data to inform the consensus on what should be done about reader understanding about how our project works. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • But you have not proven why this improves the project to make the claim it's better to ignore WP:SELFREF! If anything, this and other discussions prove that although a couple of WikiProjects may have agreed to this, there is no consensus in the wider community to do so and therefore, there is no consensus. Additionally, there is no proof in the history of Wikipedia that adding a link that works in a way that is counter to policy, would even do what you are testing for. If you want this link to be effective, burying it in the refs section (which BTW it is not a reference) is not the place to put it. A batter place might be at the very top by where the Featured article star goes. Navyvet2016 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: A significant problem with these static templates is that it may be useful for the first day a user sees it, but it is a distraction and annoyance for the rest of their life (or at least for the time the template is on articles). Templates such as {{Citation needed}} and {{Refimprove}} are perpetually useful for readers (to indicate that the verifiability of a statement or article is poor), but most readers will not use the page more than a few times. My suggestion is to add the ability to dismiss the template, adding a cookie to their Internet browser, or even only show it once (readers that are interested would bookmark the page anyway). Esquivalience ^t 17:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep there is already a consensus to use this for a pilot program. To be quite honest, the "burn every field the WMF plants no matter what it is" mission that I am seeing is somewhere between disruptive to detrimental to the project. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is fair. There are good faith arguments opposing this. I don't agree with them, but they are good faith. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@In actu: - that is indeed an unfair interpretation of the nomination - my nomination is based on that this is in the wrong place when placed in mainspace (especially given where it is placed), and I even do give alternatives with which, I hope, have shown that I may even be supportive of the underlying ideas. I do agree, what feeds my objection further is that it is not widely discussed, but nonetheless widely applied throughout Wikipedia, affecting all aspects (all Wikiprojects) of Wikipedia content (not just the 2 WikiProjects that gathered 20 support !votes). I do believe that this should have gone through community discussion (with independent consensus) before starting the trial in the first place. I was actually surprised to find out that this was yet again a WMF-backed project, after Flow, Gather, SuperProtect etc. they still fail to understand that communication is key. If I were to start this type of research with the backup of WikiProject Chemicals for all chemicals, and started to tag these articles with a non-content tag I am sure that the response here would be much less in favour of 'hey, Dirk is just running a trial, let him be, he will remove the tags after a month' .. if I were to run AWB to tag all chemicals with such a tag, I would first be blocked ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• • "To be quite honest, [...] every field the WMF plants no matter what it is [...] is somewhere between disruptive to detrimental to the project." There, a lot shorter and more to the point. Anyway, you may not have noticed that people have given a lot of arguments beyond "it is a WMF project" to support their "delete" or "put elsewhere" opinions. Perhaps reread the discussion so far. On the other hand, one person said "keep" without being unable to see the template and with the firm but incorrect belief that this was not a WMF-fronted project as main motivation apparently. (Oh, and no one opposed every thing the WMF does: Echo was good, global notifications may well be very useful for a lot of people and no problem for the others; but for every success, they seem to have a truckload of failures). Finally: consensus can change: there was a consensus at two projects, but now that this tag has come to the attention of the wider community, a new discussion can be had: not allowing that discussion because "we already have a consensus", which is the position of many "keep" opinions, goes against the basic models of what Wikipedia editing and collaboration should be. We have a consensus that tags which are not specifically related to the individual article should not be put into the article, but that consensus could apparently be ignored for this pilot; but when you have a local consensus to do this, we can not change this for the next months (results are expected by the fall, apparently) because... ? Fram (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've reverted the very bad idea by User:CFCF to speedy close this TfD.[4] CFCF is a WMF-funded editor, apparently, which of course is just an amusing coincidence and not relevant here. In any case, his "Regardless the take on where the template should be positioned, it is clear there is no support or rational for its deletion." seems to be a very bizarre reading of this discussion so far, and not supported by anything in the "speedy keep" criteria. He or she can !vote like anyone else, though hopefully with a better reasoning than the one displayed here. Fram (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It is neither a coincidence, nor amusing. My paid work is both independent and entirely unrelated, and it speaks volumes to suggest a conspiracy. No, I have followed this project out of pure interest much as any Wikipedia editor would — and I here expressed what is unequivocally a showing of no-support for deleting the template. CFCF 💌 📧 19:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 
    • Inappropriate close. Closures, especially speedy keeps, should be done by uninvolved editors following valid criteria. "No support or rationale" is not a reason to speedy keep. Esquivalience ^t 19:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fram and Drmies: As much as I don't want to sound like a broken record, I want to point out again that having had dealings with the WMF is not an automatic indicator of a COI. In this case, plenty of people receive funds via Individual Engagement Grants. I wrote about IEGs on several occasions for the Signpost, like when I interviewed the Wiki Library's creator (quite a while before the WMF took them over). They're basically scholarships handed out based on recommendations from a volunteer committee (and honestly, if you actually think the WMF's Resources team is going to care that an applicant supported a random WMF pilot, I really encourage you to go talk to them, especially Alex Wang. I have respect for anyone in grants that can win praise from Tony1.). Full disclosure: I have very little knowledge about IEGs beyond what I've written for the Signpost. I don't work with them as part of my day job except for rubber-stamping this and this almost verbatim from the draft copies. And this is a volunteer edit, as per my note on Fram's talk page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Ed, my concern wasn't any COI; I'm not enough of an insider to know anything about that. What I saw was a contentious deletion discussion being closed for lack of a valid deletion rationale or any valid deletion arguments; obviously there was "support for deletion" (that CFCF said there wasn't still puzzles me), and "speedy keep" doesn't apply at all, as you know. I have no opinion on any COI, no opinion on whether this should be kept or not--I have an opinion on that close. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
      • No worries, Drmies, just wanted you to be aware of what I said. Long time, no talk; I hope everything is well. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry CFCF, but even without commenting on your possible involvement, I think this close happened to speedily, if only because it does not meet any of the criteria in WP:SKCRIT. This is going to be a long and tedious discussion that is going to end, most likely, as "no consensus", but in the meantime it is not legitimate to close it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Drmies — I applaud that you at least give a rational for overturning the close, but the fact remains that it can be asserted there is no support for deletion. I do not deny that there is a valid and important discussion to be had over the use and placement of the template, but there is nothing such concerning its existence. CFCF 💌 📧 19:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 

That can certainly be asserted, but to do so would be false. There is support for deletion, as people have written above. Have you not seen the bolded Delete votes? BethNaught (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Per any policy based-argument that support is not valid. CFCF 💌 📧 20:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

A statement can be stated, but especially within controversy, strong premises backed by evidence are needed. Esquivalience ^t 20:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF, BethNaught, and Esquivalience: - In fact, we are here at 'Templates for Discussion'. We are discussing the template. In my nomination, I say that this does not belong in mainspace, and I do suggest alternatives, and other alternatives are discussed further down. So what we are basically discussing is whether this tag belongs in mainspace. There is certainly support for that discussion point (most delete !votes do mention that this does not belong in content). You know very well that 'Articles for Deletion'-discussions do have sometimes outcomes which are not a delete, and not a keep. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. As other participants have noted, this template violates guidelines and clutters articles. It also links to a "propaganda" page that includes information that might mislead the readers in believing that Wikipedia is more reliable than it really is (Special:Diff/707283863: "Finally, Wikipedia's millions of readers catch and fix flaws when they find them.", "This works most of the time because many eyeballs make all bugs shallow," and the like). And there is no good reason to keep it: wishes of WMF are simply irrelevant and if there was consensus to have such a template, consensus can change. Almost all the data useful for research can be found in this very discussion (that is, it is already clear that having such a template is a bad idea - and, if I understand it correctly, that's what the trial was meant to find out), thus there is no need for a further trial. Finally, something that misleads the readers is obviously not something that can help them. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep indefinitely. This is the closest I've seen to a reasonable disclaimer. Readers need to know that this content can be edited by anyone, and that this is never going to replace traditional research. It exaggerates the efficiency with which we can weed out bad edits, but too much in the opposite direction would encourage vandals. It also has some links to core policy, so prospective new editors can learn about that and not be completely clueless when they make their first edit in some battleground article ("Yes it's biased, whose sock are you?"). The long term effect of that is that we get better behavior and better articles. There are very few downsides. It may be annoying now but after you've seen it enough times you won't even notice it unless you train yourself to. Have you given any thought to that stupid logo in the upper left lately? Geogene (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Geogene: "It exaggerates the efficiency with which we can weed out bad edits, but too much in the opposite direction would encourage vandals.", "The long term effect of that is that we get better behavior and better articles." - do you understand that this way you end up arguing that we would selfishly lie to our readers, while lying to ourselves that "It's for their own good!"?

You are also trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you claim "Readers need to know that this content can be edited by anyone, and that this is never going to replace traditional research.", which would be irrelevant if readers would not notice the template, click on the link, and read all the "propaganda". On the other hand, you are saying "It may be annoying now but after you've seen it enough times you won't even notice it unless you train yourself to.", thus implying that template will be ignored, just taking useful space. Do you really expect that all that will be true at the same time?

But, of course, in reality it will be the bad things that will add up. Template will be annoying - it was meant to be, being put in the article, as if it was its legitimate part. Yes, just like the more annoying of advertisements. That, by the way, answers your "Have you given any thought to that stupid logo in the upper left lately?": the logo (and, by the way, I do not see anything especially wrong with it) is placed away from the article.

On the other hand, hardly anyone will go to read all the "propaganda". After all, it is not even good propaganda - it is boring and badly written. As you can see, even in this discussion hardly anyone discussed it. Even I didn't read all of it.

So, we end up lying to our readers and annoying them - and doing all that for nothing! So much for "There are very few downsides."... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be annoying now but after you've seen it enough times you won't even notice it unless you train yourself to. You obviously did not see the part in bold, probably because you were in too much of a hurry to tell me I'm wrong. I don't think a discussion with you on this will be productive. Geogene (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Geogene: And... that's all you are willing to say? Nothing about, for example, the point about us ending up lying for our own benefit? Oh well, let's look at the part you emphasised...

"You obviously did not see the part in bold, probably because you were in too much of a hurry to tell me I'm wrong." - oh, I did see it. My comment about it was that you were "implying that template will be ignored, just taking useful space". No, you didn't write that in those words, but your position doesn't "work" at all, unless this template has "just right" level of annoyance and noticeability: very noticeable at first, but completely unnoticeable after being seen several times. And yet, you gave no argument showing that it is indeed the case (and by itself that seems to be very unlikely, as I have explained afterwards). That's why I was asking, if you really believe it is so - or if I have misunderstood your position (obviously, the next question would have been why you believe so).

"I don't think a discussion with you on this will be productive." - that looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy, thus I guess you are right... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Geogene: 'This is the closes I've seen to a reasonable disclaimer'. But we have that disclaimer already. Now, that general disclaimer could certainly be placed in a more prominent and visible place, ánd could possibly link or even incorporate the effort behind this template. But this tag, and especially the placement of the tag, is not the way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Now, that general disclaimer could certainly be placed in a more prominent and visible place, ánd could possibly link or even incorporate the effort behind this template. This is a good point, and I'm drawing attention to it as a good suggestion for how to move forward if consensus is for deletion. Geogene (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep in the absence of any convincing reason to delete. Wikipedia is just as much about the readers as it is about the writers. clpo13_(talk) 07:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, because it does not belong in the article. (It is not content, nor reference.) Alternatives to deletion might be:

1. Move the link to the left side menu - that's where such links belong.

2. If we absolutely must keep it in the article, include a link to "hide this so I don't see it again (on any article)".

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete and I completely agree that this should have been properly discussed prior to being dumped in article space. I clicked on the link, solely because I was curious as to what this shit was and who had dumped it so badly in article space. I can't believe, in light of the enormous experience WMF and many editors have, we still have people trying to sneak stupid ideas into the project by poorly advertised, half baked, half arsed !votes in the most underused parts of the project. Astinson (WMF) - go away and do this properly the next time. Nick (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, annoying and useless. Teaktl17 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep for a trial. I saw it on a couple of medicine articles before it was TfD'ed and thought it would be a very useful page for lots of readers—at least, for the type of reader who's looking at the reference section. It's not content; it doesn't contain information relevant to the article's subject, but neither do the fifty bajillion stub tags, maintenance templates or citation needed signs all over the place, and in my opinion, it's more important to have a tag designed for a reader than a tag designed for an editor, because editors are far outnumbered and not who articles are created for. If it was up to the readers and not the editors, I reckon this template would be kept and all the crap designed for editors and dumped all over the place would be in the firing line instead (everything from "Edit" in every section header to the "What links here" in the sidebar to the "View history" at the top of the page makes an article feel like it's encircled by useless unaesthetic garbage for the vast majority of readers). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Delete for now until a project wide RFC has approved its use" Garion96 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

How, where, why?

I feel this discussion lost any semblance of being productive when users started voting for keep or delete (which was very early). Several of the arguments were merely stating opinion unbacked by policy such as: "delete because it is on article space" — but that is only an argument against a specific use, and does not concern whether the template should be deleted or not. There have been a number of previous discussions that have shown support for a limited trial of this template, and I see no reason why this should not be considered valid. I write this because I hope we can start a more fruitful discussion here about how, where, and why we should use the template. CFCF 💌 📧 20:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You should have taken it to a Village Pump. Wikiprojects don't own pages and global consensus overrides local consensus. BethNaught (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Where have I disputed that? The point is we should stop wasting time word-fighting over something that inevitably will fail to produce any result — and discuss how we should use the template — possibly by directing the discussion to VP. CFCF 💌 📧 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the VP would have been an excellent venue to discuss whether the template should have been created and tried out. However it now exists. Saying "discuss how we should use the template" presumes that the template should be kept. This TFD is a different matter. As for the final result, I invoke the Jamaican Bobsled Team Clause. BethNaught (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to this conversation, and at the end of conversation, whichever outcome, I hope to have a larger RFC, that asks two questions: if we should be highlighting our process of creations to readers through a more prominent placement of WP:Research help, and how we should do it. The first bit, I think we are closer to consensus on than it looks, the second part seems to be most of the contention -- and is tied a lot to personal preference or interpretations of how rigid policies are -- and are worth debating, and understanding deeply (part of the reason we wanted to collect some data from a pilot).

I appreciate that @Fram: made the template visible again so that we can continue collecting data. And I will confirm that I have never interacted with CFCF outside of interactions visible in my contribution history (which I believe are just on this discussion), and, on occasion in my volunteer capacity. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF), CFCF, and Fram: This should have gone through a VP discussion and/or RfC, and possibly multiple of them, in the first place. This is again one of the WMF-backed ideas which has in basis a good merit and something that is worth looking at. However, and that is the same problem as with Flow, Gather, MV, and other systems that have a strong WMF backing: it chooses a solution, and that gets implemented without broad community consultation. Throwing this template around in mainspace on thousands and thousands of articles affecting, by now already, practically all parts of Wikipedia (as judged by WikiProject coverage) without that broad consensus of the community is plainly disruptive. I brought this template up for discussion as I strongly believe that this does NOT belong in mainspace, and I do carry forward other solutions in my nomination (and yet other solutions have been suggested). I am sorry, but I cannot see this anything different than the situations with Flow, Gather etc. The WMF is inconsiderate of the community at large, and by failing to listen to that community and failing to ask for interaction by the community at large (and don't come now with a 'but I posted to VP-whatever', that was merely a notification and not a proper discussion ending in an independent decision by the community at large, it does not show the impact vs. benefits etc. etc.). And I think that that is a main factor in what often results in a failure of the overall idea, and a growing resistance against them. In actu (Guerillero) mentioned '"burn every field the WMF plants no matter what it is" mission' - that would not happen if WMF would properly communicate and ask for the community at large to comment, and make sure that there was an independent consensus for implementation. So I would strongly suggest to take it back, get the community behind it, find a solution together with the community and then see if it can be implemented again.

I asked Fram to re-display the template, first to show how it looks like (requested by some here), and secondly to get independent editors commenting on it here (it started to go quickly to the in-crew that was here discussing its 'keep for the pilot' and no-one else). CFCF, I don't think that discussion ended, and I do feel that there is sufficient opposition against display in content and that other solutions should be researched.

Besides that, I do think that the placing is about as bad as it can be (if people get to the references section they already know that they should not take what is written in the prose for granted, they know how to research), it should be more prominent for readers. Which by now means that it needs another 10.000 edits to move (and the more prominent it is in the prose the more opposition you can expect), and if the pilot is unsuccessful it needs another 10.000 to remove it (and also when it is successful then we need an interface change and 10.000 to remove these templates). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

closure

This is clearly going to go nowhere. --Izno (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I propose this be closed as "no consensus" and any further discussion regarding this template, it's usage and the project behind it be directed to the Wikipedia talk:Research help page. - theWOLFchild 01:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC) And I propose this to be closed as "delete for now until a prohect wide RFC has approved its use" and any further discussion... Look, you !voted above, I did as well, why don't we let whoever closes this judge it for themselves instead of adding another !vote in the guise of closure guidance which just happens to have the result you wanted? Fram (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC) But that is absurd — and flies in the face of ordinary practice. You're arguing for the exact type of thing you didn't do yourself. I closed this as an uninvolved editor and all you did was instantly restore that. It doesn't seem contentious that this should be closed with the template remaining and discussion being taken at the template talk-page.CFCF 💌 📧 10:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC) I don't think you are one to lecture here about "ordinary practice" and "doesn't seem contentious" (never mind "uninvolved"). Of course you don't consider it contentious, you also didn't think any of the "delete" opinions were acceptable as they somehow all violated policy apparently. Anyway, sarcasm doesn't seem to translate well with some people, so I'll explain here that my previous post was a sarcastic reply to thewolfchild, who felt the need to guide the closer of this TfD gently into the "right" direction, apparently not trusting that whoever closes this is able to read the discussion and see the outcome for themselves. It's not because we had a very poor closure once here that the next one will be equally problematic. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC) @CFCF: .. I am sorry, but I cannot support your claim as 'I closed this as an uninvolved editor ..' where you, on November 3, 2015, !voted in support of the implementation of this template (See here). I do ask here that the closing admin does take into account the !votes here that were done by editors that were in support of the original proposal here and here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Whatever you want to make of that it wasn't the objection raised by Fram, who simply disliked the ruling and that I had any affiliation to the WMF at all — and is warning others from doing the exact same thing that he did. I also clarified on my talk-page that I might not have been uninvolved in the strictest sense, even though I consider myself at best tangentially involved — having previously voiced support for a similar initiative albeit on a smaller scale (I also did not contest the reopening when it was handled properly by Drmies). The point I made here was to not call the kettle black. CFCF 💌 📧 11:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)  Where am I "warning others from doing the exact same thing that he did"? It is quite telling though that you believe that you "voiced support for a similar initiative albeit on a smaller scale", since the only discussion given to support the current roll-out of this template is the one you participated in and the simultaneous discussion (for the same rollout) on Milhist. Either you didn't realise what you were suporting at the time, or the current 10,000 + page rollout is not what was supported in the first place. Neither is good of course. Fram (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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).

Template:Country data St Matthew

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G3 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Template:Country data St Matthew (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a Country Data template for a non-existent country. Its creator is a micro-nation fan who is adding dubious unsourced content to WP articles. Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• delete Frietjes (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• delete per nom. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as a hoax. No such country exists. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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).