Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 10 February 12 >

February 11 edit

Template:PD-USGov-PHS 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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn, will group nom at a later date -FASTILY 04:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 20:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since it's a public domain template (as explained above), WhatLinksHere shows it being used on no files currently. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 23:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; deleting a formerly used license template, just because it's currently unused, is a bad idea because it will make old revisions appear to have been unlicensed. Redirect to {{PD-USGov}}, however, since it's clearly not useful anymore. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2017 (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:PD-USGov-MUTCD 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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn, will group nom at a later date -FASTILY 04:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 20:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since it's a public domain template (as explained above), WhatLinksHere shows it being used on no files currently. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 23:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; deleting a formerly used license template, just because it's currently unused, is a bad idea because it will make old revisions appear to have been unlicensed. Redirect to {{PD-USGov}}, however, since it's clearly not useful anymore. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is impractical to have PD licenses for every political entity that has existed.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore as previously requested, @Fastily, please put all these requests in a single thread so that discussion can be centralised, instead of duplicated tens to hundreds of times.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2017 (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:Somali presidential elections 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 relisted on 2017 February 26. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2017 (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).

Time limit for Template:Empty section and Template:Expand section edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. There seems to be agreement that empty sections should be removed, but an actual "timeframe" is largely opposed at this time; a discussion to remove the empty section(s) seems to be preferred. While technically speaking TFD is the proper venue for this discussion, I think revisiting this question will require a slightly wider audience (most likely involving an RFC). Primefac (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that:

by the following reasons:
1. They don't seem to result in expanded sections in the long term. The main argument for keeping them in previous deletion discussions ([1], [2] and [3]) is that that these templates exist to perhaps get some editors to write them, and for a long time I thought it was a reasonable idea, but I have since seriously started to doubt any beneficial effect thereof. Hence, I recently went to check how long time these templates may remain in articles. I had a look at the What Links Here for Template:Expand section and Template:Empty section and checked the 10 first articles where they were transcluded. My result was that these templates have been present in these articles for an average of 3 years and 10 months, and 3 years and 4 months, respectively [4]. Even in a highly popular article such as Asia, the template has been present for over 5 years without any amendment. The articles with these templates seem to be piling up, with {{Expand section}} being used in about 32,000 pages [5], and {{Empty section}} being used in 46,000 pages, [6].
2. They discourage editing, because it gives editors the option of just dumping any of these templates into the article and then leave, instead of just writing it themselves. Also, quoting Thumperward: "new editors are given the perception of being constrained in how they're going to improve an article because the work required has been intimately mapped out in advance. All in all this isn't conducive to collaborative, organic editing".
3. They are a nuisance, because they interrupt the flow when reading an article.
4. Better long-term alternatives exist, mainly:

  • Just write the material you think is missing. We have guidelines about wp:Identifying reliable sources, so anyone should be able to find proper material for the missing parts if such material exists in reliable sources.
  • {{Incomplete}} as a last resort. Although I wouldn't encourage {{Incomplete}} either, at least it serves as a more specific warning to readers. Furthermore, it better allows for the alternative approach of just deleting the text if it isn't up to acceptable standards.

When reviewing previous deletion discussions ([7], [8] and [9]) I find a reason against immediately deleting these templates, because they serve to set out the section order at an early stage, but this can always be looked up separately or even be corrected afterwards. I agree they can serve a purpose in guiding edits during focused collaborative events, but I see overall detrimental effects beyond a couple of weeks of usage. By that time, these templates seem to just serve as material for The Best of Wikipedia's Worst Writing.
I also found a supporting reason by marking these articles in Category:All articles with empty sections, but by the vast number of such articles, I doubt this feature significantly helps solving the problem.
When looking back at two similar templates before, the {{Expand}} and {{Expand article}} tags were deprecated, following discussions such as this TfD and this one. The reason was similar, with tagged articles "piling up higher and higher without anyone seeming to take care of it".
Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support time limit as nominator. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, since I've noticed the same thing. Miniapolis 14:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empty sections should've exist at all. Instead of being tagged, they should just be removed, which is exactly what I do when I see the empty section tag. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I do the same. Articles look terrible with them, and if and when content is found the sections can be recreated. IMO WP:NODEADLINE (an essay) doesn't apply to this. Miniapolis 16:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: These problems do not resolve with time, so we shouldn't encourage removing the tags simply because a set time has elapsed. There is no deadline and maintenance categories that go back ages are not uncommon.
What we can do (already with the current templates) is to remove them when 1. the problem has been resolved, or 2. there is no indication (in the edit summary, Talk page discussion, in policies or guidelines) that a problem existed in the first place.
I've found these templates useful in two particular ways: 1. Some article topics necessitate highly structured articles and when such articles miss standard sections, they should be labeled. 2. When there is consensus to include a section but not yet content for such a section. For example, a GA review once suggested the inclusion of certain sections. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In your example, that Development section still just consists of a header with this template, having been a nuisance to readers for over 2 years. I also think the Reception section would have been written at least as conveniently without starting with this template. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I can think of one example, where, if the section isn't expanded, the entire article should be deleted. (I can't remember the name at the moment, and, my watchlist being over 15000, I'm unlikely to recall it in the near future.) I support removal if there is consensus to remove, if the problem has been resolved, or if a problem has never been acknowledged (including in edit summaries).
    Specific examples where the tag should remain for a long time would be if a section was blanked as a copyvio, or if the section (empty or to be expanded) would contain the only reason why the article should exist, and doesn't presently contain such reasons.
    I agree the tag {{expand section}} should be removed, or the section and the tag {{empty section}} should be removed, if there was never a stated reason why the tag was added. But that's a completely different proposal than a time limit.
    I also have no objection to replacing the tags with similar tags; possibly inline-style tags would be less "disruptive", not that I see anything wrong with articles with such tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose... You raise valid points but I think this adds to policy bloat. Editors should decide on a case by case basis whether to remove the sections or not, allowing for WP:BOLD in doing so. This issue tends to affect obscure articles, which have low traffic, so I think WP:NODEADLINE is important to remember too. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2017 (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:GO Transit rail system 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 relisted on 2017 February 26. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2017 (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:LGPLv3 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 09:33, 11 February 2017 (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:Skagway Borough, Alaska 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 relisted on 2017 February 26. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2017 (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:Ampang Line 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. Victim of apparent vandalism. NPASR if new rationale is provided. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Blank since August 2016‎. Avicennasis @ 04:48, 7 Shevat 5777 / 04:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Obviously the result of blatant vandalism (now reverted). Therefore no basis for DR. Useddenim (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(On the other hand, I'd be willing to support the deletion of the unused Template:KL-RTS route/APL. Useddenim (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Avicennasis, any interest in withdrawing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2017 (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:ClockBlock 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. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joke. Userfy. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't understand what you talking about? ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 23:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for lack of an argument. Are you proposing to userfy all the templates in Category:Wikipedia humor? It seems pretty inconsistent if not. Disclosure: I created this template.  — Scott • talk 01:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added {{Template:Humorous}} to this template as it seems this template is supposed to be humorous. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 16:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the {{humorous}} is clearly appropriate for the content, and we don't delete such pages unless they're either outright stupid (i.e. not funny at all) or offensive in some way. It's neither stupid nor offensive. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2017 (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:SF Freeways 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 02:41, 11 February 2017 (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:Coat of arms of Hungary - public domain 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 Withdrawn, will group nom at a later date -FASTILY 04:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 00:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; deleting a formerly used license template, just because it's currently unused, is a bad idea because it will make old revisions appear to have been unlicensed. However, I'd support redirecting this to a different PD template, since it's clearly not useful anymore. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unused because files transcluding it have been deleted or moved to Commons. Uploaders should be encouraged to contribute these files at Commons, and leaving this tag in place sends the wrong message. Also, any human reviewing said 'old revision' would click on the red link, find this discussion, and understand what happened. -FASTILY 03:03, 19 February 2017 (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:PD-art-YorckProject 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 Withdrawn, will group nom at a later date -FASTILY 04:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 00:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; deleting a formerly used license template, just because it's currently unused, is a bad idea because it will make old revisions appear to have been unlicensed. However, I'd support redirecting this to a different PD template, since it's clearly not useful anymore. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2017 (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:PD-GH-currency 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 Withdrawn, will group nom at a later date -FASTILY 04:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 00:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; deleting a formerly used license template, just because it's currently unused, is a bad idea because it will make old revisions appear to have been unlicensed. However, I'd support redirecting this to a different PD template, since it's clearly not useful anymore. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2017 (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/2017_February_11&oldid=1087817629"