Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 20

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 19 May 21 >

May 20 edit

Template:Missing information 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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. We have yet again failed to persuade the big-endians of their heresy. All is woe and ashes, and darkness falls ;) Tagishsimon (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Missing information}} is used on 966 pages. Its purpose is explained thus: "it should be used when certain necessary information is absent from the article." We have more than 5 million articles, and roughly all of them have important information missing. The template provides no advice on what "necessary" information is, leaving the decision to the user. And so we have a tag which allows a user to promote their special feeling of need for information, within the article itself.

I'm deeply unconvinced by any of the instances of use I've looked at. I don't doubt that most of the uses do point to information which would be useful to the article. But, equally, the use seems arbitrary, capricious, partial, subjective and, judging by the dating, mostly useless.

I know that we have been debating the utility of article tags since their implementation. And whereas after consideration I commend this tag to the dustbin, I should be interested to hear any argument for its retention: are there ever circumstances in which the need that prompts the use of this tag and the explanation of missingness which it requires cannot instead be handled on the talk page or by, you know, adding information, however brief, to the article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that as the template is locked, it has not been updated to reflect this TfD discussion. If anyione could fix that, I'd be obliged; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I completely agree with User:Tagishsimon who points out even more issues than I have with this template. My main concerns are that it is unsightly, can contain anyone's subjective opinion on what the article needs, which may be POV in itself, and is tantamount to a talk page post dominating the top several inches of an otherwise professional-looking article. Would Britannica mar hundreds of their articles with a banner stating an opinion of what should be in the article but isn't? Of course not. Let's keep these posts at the talk pages where they belong. (Moving to keep.)Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. However, I suggest that deletion not be automated but manually done. Whatever was suggested should be copied to the talk page, absent if there's already a talk page discussion on the topic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ricky81682. There are 966 of them. A script could be made, maybe. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on a script. Either way, it's not as simple as just untranslucating them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ricky81682. I'm not sure how to make one, but I doubt it could check talk for duplicate content. I guess it could just copy it from the article, remove it, and make a post at talk saying where it came from. It's either that or manual, which would take hours of community time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke with User:Nakon at IRC who says a script would be doable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a script that is about 90% ready to go that can remove the templates and paste the request information on the article's talk page. Nakon 00:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And why, we ask, is this the case within a mere three hours? Because Nakon is super-awesome, that is why. Nakon, be a dear and please take over the US Congress. Tell them Anna insists.   Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My Congress-controlling script is still awaiting approval. I have one final bug to fix on this script and then I will be ready to take action as necessary. Please review Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/nakon-bot01 for further details. Thanks, Nakon 05:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastique! And that will be a killer-script. I don't mean literally. Just design it to cause them all to walk out permanently, head to the park, and tuck into a huge bag of grass. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what talk pages are provided for. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Editors should add missing information themselves, or at the very least, work with others via the talk pages. The Missing Information template is not helpful or constructive. Drsmoo (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As in pages like Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the template does have indicated what the missing "necessary" information is.C933103 (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, C933103, but why not use the talk page instead rather than marring the top of the article with yet another template? How does this look to visitors? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent example of the problem with this template. I'm sure that more discussion of the "complex and wide-ranging social, political, and environmental issues" would be desirable (because in all cases, we're advocating more motherhood and apple pie, always difficult to argue against.) But two or three things: 1) there's already an encyclopedia length section, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster#Energy policy implications, which goes some way to discussing these issues, 2) the information is clearly secondary to the fact and description of the incident, and so by my logic, de facto cannot be 'necessary'. Since when were secondary issues necessary to discussion of a primary topic and 3) so we come down to a difference of opinion, as to how necessary exactly is this missing social, political, and environmental issues information. Exactly the subjectivity and POV issue raised above. Meanwhile, right now, the top of that article itself looks like a crash-site, with its multiple hatnotes and then a brace of cautionary templates. We can do better than that, and we should not be put in a position where one camp can insist that its opinion on the need for information can be promoted in such an inappropriate place. So, no. Colour me very unconvinced by your example. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: If you think it'd be better to talk about those in the talk page, then the template can be modified into a link to talk page. The template would still have to be there to show editors or users there are a particular aspect needed to work on for the article, and it is not the fault of a template when people abuse it by putting multiple of it onto same page with clumsy wording and not merging them. And @Tagishsimon:, 1) The template was probably added before the section being expanded to its current length, 2)If some editors disagree on what information is necessary, then they can discuss that in the talk page just like any other disagreement on article content.C933103 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I used it on Maps of Ukraine to indicate that I wasn't able to find information about nineteenth-century and post-Crimean crisis maps of the country. Because I didn't know where to look for such maps, the article has big holes: everything post-1769 is covered in a single sentence that goes from 1919 to 1991. The banner usefully draws attention to this and asks for knowledgeable people to fill in these holes. Someone who hasn't previously contributed will notice this, and if they decide to contribute, this would be a useful reminder of "here's a big hole you could help to fill in", a reminder that someone who's never contributed won't see if it's put on the talk page. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nyttend. Its purpose is clear, and I am sure there are plenty of times that it is useful. The problem is the downsides as expressed above. Those heavily outweigh the benefits. Maybe we need instead a teeny article notice that says "There is a request for missing information at the talk page" or something like that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the article Eugenics in the United States it fulfils a useful purpose: the article lacks much information about US eugenics post-WWII, which is a significant period given it was when many of the US's forced sterilisations happened. For cases like these, I think the template can be useful. It's nice to warn readers that the article is incomplete, rather than confine that to the talk page leaving them unaware. —ajf (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, ajf, that's a bit like anectodal evidence and little more. What about the accompanying problems associated with this template? It is a bit like saying every article should have an infobox above the infobox asking for donations. Sure, more donations, but what of the downside? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remember basic logic: anecdotal evidence of X disproves an assertion that X doesn't have any evidence, so an argument that this template can't be used properly is disproven by anecdotes of good use. With a maintenance template, deletion is only appropriate when the template can't be used appropriately, because it can always be removed from pages where it isn't being used properly. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Deletion is appropriate when it can be used appropriately, but has overwhelming accompanying problems (those stated above). In fact, it can and is being used properly, but it can and is being used improperly also, and we have no system to examine and remove those. So who will detect and remove them? Most people who arrive at an article are readers, not editors. The vast majority will, I believe, see it, wish they hadn't, not remove it, nor do what it suggests. It is, after all, a message to editors. When editors arrive at articles, they know about talk pages, the appropriate and conventional place for such posts, which is what this template is, a post. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, looking at dates confirms this. For example, International Ski Federation has had this tag for over two years and School zone for six years. These are just random picks. Each gets around 30,000 page visits a year. Is this worth it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a dilly I cherry-picked: Discovery (law) at 400 hits a day x 365 days x 8 years = over a million visits with that template there. How many read it and grumbled and moved on? I'd say nearly a million. We have a thousand of these templates kicking around. A thousand articles x maybe 30,000 hits each per year = 30,000,000 read-and-regrets a year. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider, Opencooper, Sigehelmus, Nyttend, C933103, et al? Come onnnnnnn, reconsider, reconsider, reconsider! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasons above, this template has a demonstrative, reliable use and has helped many pages over an exhaustive time.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have tags on articles and not talk pages because they are issues that need to be addressed. Not only do they serve to inform readers that the article is missing something crucial, but it also signals that to potential contributors prominently, just like other cleanup tags. The only difference here is that this template is useful for when a generic template like {{No plot}} isn't applicable. All these people worried about how ugly the article looks with these warnings should take it as incentive to actually improve the article than to hide and relegate the issue to talk pages which no one ever reads. Lastly, who else but our editors would know what information is missing? It's not POV, it's actually helping to fix POV issues because it highlights an aspect of the article that hasn't been addressed. Opencooper (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that a template is overused isn't a reason to delete it. This tag, when used correctly, is informative to readers of the article, not just to editors. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is shooting the messenger. Some articles like Features new to Windows 10 use it justly. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, Tagishsimon, even though their arguments seem somewhat ILIKEITish and "it's useful", without addressing the downsides, there sure are a lot of keeps. Have we been wrong? Should we change our position? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you don't know, "it's useful" is appropriate for a template. WP:USEFUL isn't applicable to maintenance templates. And I happen to like it because it helps identify articles that need additional work. Don't try to cast aspersions on everyone when your ideas are being shot down. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're probably right, Nyttend. I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to cast aspersions and certainly wasn't meant in bad faith. And I don't mind when my ideas are shot down. It means my ideas are probably wrong. That is exactly why I posted the above "Have we been wrong?". I just wonder why nobody is responding to the claims of the downside of this template? I mean, really, all the keeps are just saying "I like it and find it useful." and that is just one side of things. All aspects of this template should be considered. No, wait, I don't know if I'm sorry. And I wasn't casting aspersions or acting in bad faith. What I said is not terrible and I meant it. Yes, keepers are in fact saying keep because it is useful without responding to the valid points the deleters have made. At least they ought to say "It is so useful that that outweighs the downsides." That, I could accept. And if this ends up as keep, then it ought to and I was wrong and tough noogies for me. I won't mind that one bit. Please don't be angry with me. Respectfully yours, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure, additions can be requested on the talk page, but sometimes the fact that content is missing makes the article seriously unbalanced or leaves serious blind spots that readers should know about. Tagging important omissions on the article itself also gets a lot more attention and makes it that much more likely to get fixed. Tagging is also useful because a list can be generated of articles associated with a specific Wikiproject or category subtree, for use by editors who are looking for something important to do. (That can be done whether these tags are on the article page or on the talk page, but there should be a template either way.) -- Beland (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it so hard to trust my own judgement when so many respected editors take an opposite view. I mean, they read our arguments and still feel Wikipedia is better off with the template. To me, that counts for a lot. How many times have we seen an individual dig in their heels, and insist they're right, while we all see it the other way. I must be that person this time. I must be wrong. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2016 (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).

Template:Lake County Fielders roster 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 17:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This team was disbanded in 2012, therefore a roster template isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2016 (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).

Template:Split media - processed 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus to merge. Participants of this discussion haven't agreed on what the discussion is even about within the first two weeks, so consensus to merge seems very unlikely to be achieved. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 17:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Split media - processed with Template:Split media.
{{Split media - processed}} gives wrong and dangerous information, and all files which use the template have been split incorrectly and therefore need to be retagged with {{split media}} so that they can be split correctly. I suggest redirecting {{split media - processed}} to {{split media}} as a first fix.

If someone actually follows the instructions in the template, then important source information is lost, so the instructions in the template must never be followed by anyone. Instead, the correct way to split files is described at Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#How to undo a history merge. Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to megre given that I created {{split media}} in the first place. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is current practice any more harmful than moving images to Commons? (And where, for that matter, do you expect to find administrators willing to history split? I'd be surprised if there's a dozen active admins who have ever done even one.) —Cryptic 10:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current practice is that files are split by deleting the page, then undeleting each file one at a time and moving them without redirect to different names. This template describes a different process which means destroying the upload history and therefore is very dangerous if someone finds other copies of the image elsewhere on the Internet as it may then be more difficult to tell where the file was first posted.
When files are moved to Commons, the original history is unfortunately also lost, but at least people add an original upload log, something which hasn't been done when this template has been used. However, in the Commons case, this is because of technical limitations. There are no such technical limitations when splitting a file into multiple file names on the same project. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Quite frankly, what on earth the nom. is talking about? (Has he nominated the wrong template?) Looking at this template, it is requesting an admin to delete older image revisions that have nothing to do with the current revision. That's a plausible speedy deletion request. This template has a mandatory reason parameter too. Only this template is best name {{Delete old irrelevant revisions}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no deletion criterion which would allow for the deletion of the old revisions simply because the old revisions mustn't be deleted. Instead, the file should be split so that the old revisions appear under different names. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong! WP:CSD applies to individual revisions too; that's why admins always delete the old revisions of non-free images. (They do it per WP:CSD § F5.) An irrelevant revision (which is subsequently overwritten) lacks source, license, and (where applicable) use rationale. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:F4 says that you can delete files if there is too little information available about its copyright status. If you can obtain this information by inspecting the history of the file information page, then the file appears to be ineligible for deletion under WP:F4. If a FUR is missing, then it would seem that the overwritten revision is non-free, meaning that it can be deleted under WP:F5, or in some cases under WP:F9. --09:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Exactly! There needs to be a mean (a template or nomination page) to request for the deletion of the specific revision. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose (rename or delete and modify SD templates) – At the first glance, the nomination seems to make sense: The procedure has changed; hence this template is now irrelevant. But consider this scenario: User A produces a new slightly different version of File:Diagram P.png but mistakenly uploads it to File:Diagram B.png. Having noticed his mistake, he presses the revert button, bringing the last good revision back. Then, proceeds to upload his new slightly modified version into the correct target, File:Diagram P.png. In such situations, there should be a way to request an admin to delete the mistake. One alternative would be to rename this template as CL suggested. Another would be to add a |revision= parameter to all speedy deletion templates for files and delete this template. Fleet Command (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that this should be changed into some kind of WP:G7 template? The ones who have added the template to files haven't used the template in this way. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really see why we must restrict this to the author only. For all we know, User A in my scenario might not be the author of File:Diagram P.png or File:Diagram B.png. Or consider this scenario: User A, having committed the said mistake, never notices his error. User B comes, notices the mistake, reverts to the last good known revision and then has to ask an admin to delete the incorrect file revision. Situation gets even more delicate if File:Diagram B.png is non-free. Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:31, 20 May 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_20&oldid=955551333"