Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 3 February 2008

January 29

Template:Infobox Kyle XY season 1 episode list

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 19:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Kyle XY season 1 episode list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The episode articles have no reason to exist at this point, so this template is unnecessary.. TTN (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - they all redirect to different rows of the same list!! Happy‑melon 22:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Happy-melon. JPG-GR (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as useless navigational tool. SkierRMH (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2008 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Maintained

Template:Maintained (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous TFDs:

2007 March 21 (result: keep)

2005 December 14 (result: no consensus)

I know it says "This in no way implies article ownership," but I have only seen this template used where the editors are "owning" the article. I can't think of a reason where this is needed, because the edit history and talk page lists active contributers. Plus, one doesn't have to be a regular editor of an article to "help with questions about verification and sources", specifically. This template, in my opinion, only asks for problems and does not contribute anything to the encyclopedia. нмŵוτнτ 18:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I don't think rewording is a good option either. I just don't see the use for any template like this at all, however it is worded. Any template that must designate "this in no way implies article ownship" probably slants a little bit towards ownership. нмŵוτнτ 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I know that Brian meant well when he made the template, and it is clearly not meant to imply ownership. And I know that anyone who goes against policies can be dealt with. However, if that's the case, why do we protect articles rather than just dealing with & reverting the vandalism? If something seemingly asks to be abused and misused, I don't see why we should have it. нмŵוτнτ 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

nothing good can be served by this that is not better done by the history and the talk page. DGG (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me you've read throughly though the past discussions...

Obviously it it's far easier to identify contributors via this template than trying to decode the jumbled mess that is a page history. I agree that one doesn't have to be an 'active' editor to help with verification and sources, but it's still nice to have someone you can go to. Are you suggesting we create a new template that specifically says "This user offers to help with any questions about said topic"? The problem I feel with maintained is that neither of the two things it specifies need be true. Some articles are near perfect and no longer have active contributors, and some 'maintainers' are not experts on a subject. Still, Misplaced Pages is close to a complete anarchy when it comes to article maintenance and we seem to have some deluded idea that articles will maintain themselves. I don't think deleting this template is going to do much to help that. Richard001 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral I do not intend to cast a vote in this discussion, but perhaps if it gets as ridiculously overcontested as the previous two TfDs, I can help try and keep the discussion in order. But a few comments about Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and other pertinent policies are in order - these were all argued in the previous TfDs, so there's really no need to rehash them here:
  • No editor can claim ownership of articles, or even claim that their input is required in discussions. Any templates which appear to give ownership of articles to particular editors are unacceptable.
  • Templates must do no harm, and can be deleted if they appear to harm the encyclopedia. If a template discourages users from editing an article, this would be considered harm.
    • Correction: No overall harm. Stopping IPs from creating new pages does harm, but overall we agree not to let them do it. Richard001 (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Templates can be reworded. For the purpose of a TfD it is best to consider a template as a set of template calls scattered across Misplaced Pages - what those template calls actually display is a matter for negotiation. It if often possible to nullify objections in TfDs by rewording the template - deletion is not always required.
  • A template's potential for misuse is not grounds for deletion, unless that potential outweighs the benefits that the template otherwise provides.
  • Assertions at TfD should be based on evidence, not speculation - this applies to both keep votes and delete votes.
• Let the games begin :D Happy‑melon 22:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The template effectively advises new users to contact individual users directly about an issue with an article rather than using the talk page. Contacting users directly makes the resulting discussion less visible to the wider community – this is generally bad. The template also implies status which is wrong and could lead to inexperienced users baselessly valuing the opinions of some users over others in discussions. Additionally since users active in contributing to a page are probably going to be monitoring the talk page anyway, the template is unnecessary. Guest9999 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The template doesn't instruct the reader to contact the listed users on their talk pages. If they do get contacted on their talk pages, the discussion can be moved to the article talk page. 2. At any rate, it shows that there's more of a chance of someone actually responding, which is all to often not the case on article talk pages. 3. If you think the template implies status, that's okay the same way being an adminstrator implies status; it means nothing either way. Isn't it true that most articles and featured articles are written by one or two people? 4. However, if you do contest a usage, and the user's response (or lack thereof) is unsatisfactory, then remove it. The removal of this template is a pretty strong indication that it should not be added back, and that's that. 5. A use of this template for experienced editors is seeing whether anyone is maintaining the article. The addition of this template in addition to a quick glance at the edit history shows that they are serious about it, so I can leave that article to work on the tons of other articles that are not maintained. The edit history and talk page by themselves are not a good enough sign as to whether editors will actively maintain the article for the time to come (cf. hit and runs). Moreover, they take a lot of work to analyze, work that can be spent on article content. A problem we have is that we have a lot of editors contributing to specific subsets of articles that overlap while missing other unmaintained articles that they are interested in as well; there's no delegation of tasks, and it's not at all obvious whether any given WikiProject is paying attention to an article. 6. We lost an editor over one of these TfDs. There's really no reason to nominate again as it is reasonable to assume that there will be adequate counterarguments to converge to a lack of consensus. For nom to be convincing, should provide actual numbers and examples. –Pomte 02:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to name any specific users in this discussion, or abuse of the template. Also, I don't think it implies status. I think that it seems as though the users who put themselves on it are trying to make it seem like they have status. And with negative things said about Misplaced Pages and cabals, I think it only brings WP down to make it seem to some that editors have a place over others. Even if it's an article that hasn't been edited for a while, a user can find any former editors to contact in the history. This template simply doesn't add anything that isn't already available, and, it can potentially have negative effects. Therefore, there's no reason we should have it. нмŵוτнτ 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is appropriate to cite examples of abuse if abuse forms the basis of your nomination. I've given reasons to have it, and it doesn't seem that you've addressed them at all. (Analogously, WikiProjects don't add anything that isn't already available, and can potentially have negative effects. Therefore, there's no reason we should have them.) –Pomte 03:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per my voluminous past rationale at the last TFD. If people are trying to own articles, complain on the articles' talk pages, or on the users' talk pages, or at the administrator noticeboard. Trying to delete a template is not going to stop them from acting like they own the article. If your only argument is that an unstated fraction of users of this template are attempting to own certain articles, in violation of previously-existing Misplaced Pages policies, and therefore nobody should be allowed to use the template, then please withdraw this TFD altogether. Why you chose a TFD as the location to complain about specific users violating well-grounded Misplaced Pages policy on specific articles, I'm not sure... — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 03:14ZUnnecessary emphasis removed. Happy‑melon 12:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nooo, I meant that it only makes it seem like people are owning articles. However, that was just one point of many. My main point was that there doesn't seem to be any positive use for it, and the pros outweigh the cons, here. This point that I brought up isn't about people owning articles, but, rather, the template making it seem like people do. Let me know if you'd like further elaboration. нмŵוτнτ 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I already linked, read the last TFD and the template talk page for the many positive reasons for this template. Any rationale you can think of was already covered in the last TFD which resulted in Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:17Z

• Delete, per my comment at the previous TfD, which I still consider valid: "If half the people on this TFD feel that the template implies a degree of ownership, doesn't it make sense, in the absence of other data, to assume that half the newbs who see it for the first time might feel the same way?" Hesperian 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The people on this TFD are not readers, they are editors. It makes no sense that "the following users may be able to help with questions about verification and sources" should somehow imply violation of WP:OWN. Thus the reason the template was kept in the last TFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:16Z
    • You don't know "the reason the template was kept in the last TFD", as no reason was given. Hesperian 01:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I say delete per my previous nomination for deletion. John Reaves 17:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As per last nomination. The template does serve to inform interested readers as to the people who are more involved with the article. If some rewording is necessary to even further remove the possibility of implication of ownership or perhaps the name of the template can be changed (moved) I would not be adverse to that, but, as Brian said both now and before, this template does serve a useful function, does not imply ownership any more than a history page with 97% of the entires being the same editor, and should not be deleted. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP. This is a totally useful and harmless template and completely agree with Richard001. Many readers would not even know to scan the history for active contributors in order to ask any questions, and this template only makes for easier navigation to users who can answer questions about verification of sources. I have the template on an article that I researched for many many moons, and I would like it to be known that I am available to be reached for any concerns regarding the sources I have provided, and certainly do not claim ownership, nor do I think the template suggests that. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone who isn't knowledgable enough to scan the talkpage or the contribution history is exactly the kind of user who would be very likely to interpret this template as a sign of official responsibility. No matter how people see this and how the template is intended to be used, it quite obviously has the effect of redirect queries away from the talkpage. What this means in practice is that individuals who most likely already dominate articles a lot will be able to dominate them even more. Peter 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Wait a minute ... a new user who isn't knowledgeable enough to read a talk page will be deterred from editing by a template that can only be seen by viewing the talk page? I'm missing something here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Viewing the talkpage isn't the same as being able to interpret the talkpage. This template parks itself right on top of the page and trumps any and all threads. Instead of scanning those threads (or God forbid posting the query on the talkpage), a user is very likely to post only at the user talkpage specified in the template. The talkpage gets ignored and certain individuals grant themselves the privilage of being self-proclaimed flappers (in Swift's definition of the word) for community. Peter 09:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • "Viewing the talkpage isn't the same as being able to interpret the talkpage." My point exactly. Which is why I have seen queries related to an article that I have supposedly scared new editors away from by pissing all around simply by putting "{{tl|maintained|{{User|Daniel Case}}}}" on top of posted to that article's talk page with no idea who their queries should be addressed to. Take a look at Talk:New Coke. The article gets flamed ... I do not. Take a look at my talk page and their archives and see if you find one query there that should have been posted to the talk page of any article I've placed this template on. New users use the talk page, whatever you think they do, and I would prefer that a deletion rationale that claimed this template establishes ownership cite some actual occurrence, not some user's assumption about what new users would think or do.

          "This template parks itself right on top of the page and trumps any and all threads." Right at the top? The most devoted users and defenders of this template here besides myself have all placed this at the bottom of the top stack. No wonder it gets ignored. Even with nested project and article promotion history templates, it still doesn't jump out. Oh, take a look also at Talk:U.S. Route 9 in New York with all the templates set at "small" and put on the side and tell me with a straight face you honestly think a new user would notice this template and crumple up in a heap of tears and say "I'll never be able to so much as correct a spelling error, Daniel Case has this all wrapped up for himself!" (Instead, I assert my mastery over the article by taking all the pictures myself (well, almost), following up to every question on the talk page, challenging challengers first and then agreeing with them when I do realize they're right then making the changes myself, and doing all the other things good editors are supposed to do to articles to maintain their quality level. The things you probably do too, don't deny it).

          Seriously, I would like to see a statistical analysis done by the delete voters here to see if non-vandal editing by anons and newer users decreases or not following the placement of this template on a talk page. I'd bet that it does not. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Extremely strong keep. If this template was in any way as successful in implying the ownership its detractors think it does, they should try using it themselves. I have not had that experience with at least two dozen articles whose talk pages I've put it on. I've seen people make major changes to some of the articles, put maintenance templates on them, all without notifying me first. Maybe once I've gotten contacted over it, but even then I can't say for sure.

  I agree with other participants that assuming readers will know to check the history is a pipe dream. First, many unregistered users don't realize that the history's even publicly viewable; second many don't know how to interpret what they see there, and thirdly we have the problem as always of people using inadequate or jargon-heavy edit summaries. And lastly it could be misleading ... what about cases (there are some) where the heaviest, most substantial edits to a GA or FA have come from a subsequently banned user. Or someone who's left the project. What good are they to an new editor or reader who wants to follow up on something?

  To me what this template implies is not ownership, but a sense of responsibility. To confuse the two betrays an immaturity which is detrimental to the project. I may not be the only editor making contributions to The Lovely Bones, Slide Mountain (Ulster County, New York) or Anna Wintour, but I'm the one who takes it upon himself to make sure those articles are of the highest possible quality. And that's what this template means on those talk pages. And until this debate was revived, I thought everyone else saw it that way too.

  There are subtler ways editors display stealth ownership, in any event, probably not without realizing it, then slapping a template on the talk page, like making minor modifications to every addition anyone else makes, immediately slapping {{fact}} or outright removing any unsourced addition no matter how minor, and making sure they're the first ones to revert any vandalism and warn the vandal, no matter how minor. To me those things (and yes, I've done them as I'm sure everyone else here has, and we should expect no less from every dedicated editor) do a lot more to scream "Mine! Mine! Mine!" to any editor, old or new. Without the template to proclaim this sense of responsibility, I think, that behavior becomes less salutary. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • This just in: The {{maintained}} template I have on Talk:New Coke has failed to deter another user from delisting it as a GA. So much for my "ownership" of that article.
• Keep per all the reasons given. --Dr who1975 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't supposed to be a vote, Dr who. Peter 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry if I'm too concise for you... While wikipedia is indeed not a Democracy. I've been in plenty of these discussions where the decider appears to have treated it like it was a vote. In fact, I've seen many people put entries in like "Keep per so-and-so's reason" why are you singling me out to criticise.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Why is it ok for you to put an entry in a discussion that simply reads "Delete per Kicking222" but when I do something similar you criticise me for "voting". That is hypocirsy and it has nothing to do with this discussion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Emphasis removed. Happy‑melon 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Because I did it more than a year and a half ago when I was still under the impression that these things were votes. Try spending your time formulating a motivation of your own instead of trying to dig up dirt in contribution histories. Peter 09:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I have found that a number of readers are more comfortable sending a private inquiry to the maintainers' addresses than they are posting a question for the world to see. The template, which allows multiple people to register their names, hurts no one and provides a minor benefit to some readers. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No matter how many disclaimers we include in this template, it will always be an effective tool for individual users (or groups of users) to dominate an article. A template like this will always imply that certain topics are the business of individual users, rather than a collective responsibility. Peter 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Effective tool"... how? How do you propose that a user take control of an article that has a talk page on an encyclopedia with policies and administrators? How does the sentence "the following users may be able to help with sources and verification" imply anything but what the sentence itself says? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 19:59Z
    • The template implies, no matter how many friendly disclaimers you include, that some type of pseudo-official responsibility lies with certain individuals. The only benefit as I see it is that certain users can trim their watchlists. The downside is that those same users can easily come into the position of deciding whether a certain query is worthy of being brought up on the talkpage or not (or indeed replied to at all). Peter 09:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per essentially the same reaosns given by Hesperian. When a new editor sees it are they going to feel that they can edit the article even if it contains glaring errors of fact? Some of these things are misunderstood as being official representations of or by Misplaced Pages rather than some thing that some editor's put up there. Disclosure: I have used it once on a low-traffic article which I've fully researched but haven't got around to finishing yet, but it is trying to do something that text in the article would be better to do. Orderinchaos 18:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • When a new editor sees it are they going to feel that they can edit the article even if it contains glaring errors of fact?" I can assure this does not stop them in the slightest. Here, for instance, a user with a handful of edits at the time put {{cleanup-rewrite}} on Action Park, which I'd had the template on for a long time, and followed up on the talk page. I don't even think they noticed the template there ... you assume that new editors will first read the talk page and second that they will do so thoroughly enough to notice this rather inobtrusive template sandwiched among (often) all others. I would like to think they'd be that careful, but they're not. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete - I think the negatives of perceived OWNership on the balance outweigh those of helpfulness, and the need for extra reminders to conduct oneself in a cooperative manner.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I understand what the delete voters are saying, that it implies ownership and the like. Here's why the template is in fact important though. I personally use it on one article myself, it being the GA John Baldwin (educator). The two sources used, one of them copyright in 1925, are extremely hard to find, and I know nowhere else that carries them other then in the library near me. As a result, I can personally verify or check the source myself, but most users would be completely unable to do this. To those who think it should be deleted, what do you suggest as an alternative to the reason I use the template, to help out others due to the article using rare sources? Granted, my article is rarely visited according to the view log, so it's not the best example, but it hasn't stopped IPs from contributing constructively to the article, which throws out that argument. Wizardman 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  To note, when I say "view log" I mean this script. Wizardman 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with questions about the source can ask on the talk page, which I assume you have watchlisted. нмŵוτнτ 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Avi --evrik  19:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Does anyone have any examples of someone actually using this template as an "I own this article" tactic? -Ravedave (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do, actually... several. However, to avoid conflict, I'd rather not bring up specific names or articles to avoid retaliation. I ask that you assume good faith on my part and trust that I do know several examples. нмŵוτнτ 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had a major problem with the use of "secret evidence" here a couple of months ago that resulting in a desysopping and bad publicity. We can do this in camera if you want ... email me the links or evidence in question and I will keep your confidence. But if you still don't, you can't expect to win a debate you so earnestly want to if you keep telling us to just trust you that you have the evidence. I mean, that approach got the US into Iraq. Assuming good faith does not mean assuming things on faith. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'd say "secret evidence" is the wrong word. Nothing is being kept from anyone. If a user wants to see who is abusing the template, he or she can look through its "what links here" to see many examples. No specific ones need to be named, as most of the time, I feel that it is used this way. нмŵוτнτ 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"No specific ones need to be named, as most of the time, I feel that it is used this way". So, in other words, you don't have any examples, contrary to what you just said above. Other than "most of the time, I feel it is used this way." Sorry, but how you feel something is used is not a valid reason to delete a template. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Firstly, as per another example that I have seen that is similar to Wizardman's. Secondly, I feel the arguments that this template empowers certain editors to control an article is ridiculous. This is why we have dispute resolution in the case that an editor goes too far. -- Reaper X 20:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I've never seen any examples of it actually used to flaunt ownership. Rather, I think that it can help to know who's been active in writing up an article, as something that would foster discussion rather than OWNership. bibliomaniac15 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. OWNership is one of the ugliest things I see in Misplaced Pages, and the small benefit that this template may provide is well offset by the inevitability that this is misused. —Moondyne 23:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • How is the imagined future misuse of this template by one or more users - a misuse that would be in violation of established Misplaced Pages policy - a rationale for deleting this template? Do we delete {{stub}} because people occasionally put it on non-stub pages? No, we resolve the problem on that specific page, which is the obvious solution to any article-specific allegations of WP:OWN violations. I don't understand how you even see a potential for misuse in the following statement: "the following users may be able to help answers questions about sources and verifiability"... — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-31 00:24Z
    • Comparing it to a stub template is a bit of a strawman argument. If you cannot see a potential for misuse I can only presume you're choosing to ignore all of the delete points here and in the previous discussions. As someone said above, Templates should do no harm. This one can. —Moondyne 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I still don't see why we need to effectively hold people's hands, when issues of any other kind are already addressed on article/user talk pages. You still have not provided a single example of misuse or an explanation of how it could be misused. Have we gotten rid of adminship altogether because admin accounts have been compromised? No. At least one could argue for getting rid of adminship based on numerous real examples. You don't even have examples of misuse of this template, and still want to delete it. You're going to have to explain this more clearly than by saying that I am "choosing to ignore all of the delete points". Have you seen how much I contributed to the last TFD discussion? Should I suggest reading Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and ask that you do not presume that I am purposely ignoring discussion? If you want to discuss it, then do it. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-31 14:21Z
        • Brian I can assure you I wasn't assuming bad faith and aplogise for choosing my words badly enough that you thought I was. I respect your right to argue the case and hope that you respect mine also. I also know how much effort you've put into defending it now and twice previously. I've stated my reasons and have nothing to add. I presume the template will stay regardless, and I promise I won't lose any sleep over it. Regards —Moondyne 14:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As in the previous discussion, people who use the template have pointed out various ways in which it has been helpful, but those opposed to it fail to cite a single example of misuse. —Kevin Myers 23:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This template would be particularly useful on "start" articles where new ediotrs may want to contact the most interested editors. For me, the main reason why I didn't vote delete is because the template is worded so as not to assume article ownership. Billscottbob (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with BSB. It could be very useful with new editors as an easy way to contact someone who has put a good bit of work into a particular article. Dincher (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the problems are not with the template but with some of the editors. Why delete something that many editors use rationally when a few are using it to claim ownership. Dincher (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The first time I saw this template, I immediately thought that that would push ownership of an article. I know it is used to show people who know a lot about the article, but the nature of this template is just so that it sounds similar to owning an article. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You presume to know the intention of those who created and use the template, and that it consisted of knowingly violating WP:OWN. Should I link to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-31 03:57Z
• Oh...now I've realised how wrong and convoluted the idea sounds. So, with Hmwith's words in mind, either delete per WP:OWN, or deprecate for historical reference. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, based on experiences where readers of articles have got in touch to point out inaccuracies, despite not wanting to get involved in the Wiki process.

In the first of these in May 2007 a scientist pointed out a bad mistake in the Enzyme kinetics article he said in his e-mail that "I don't know wikipedia etiquette", but that he felt more comfortable communicating directly with somebody who knew about the subject. The mistake was corrected based on his advice. The second example was more recent and involved the Antioxidant article. A new editor wanted to talk about what links can be added and why. Again the user said "I am new to Wiki" and wanted somebody to talk to.

So in my experience, rather than putting people off, this template allows people who don't have the confidence to edit an article or talk page to get involved and talk to somebody who will respond to their questions. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, per Tim and others. It would be nice if we could get all this effort focussed on improving the template and related issues on Misplaced Pages. Richard001 (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Are there any examples of this template being used that aren't fairly clear violations of WP:OWN? Editors who are experts on a subject show up in the page history and talk page; people who ignore the page history and talk page are often not going to see controversial or unsourced edits stick. When I see people slap a Maintained template on a page, to me it's an indication of original research, unsourced information, and likely argument if one tries to improve the page. I tend to avoid correcting errors on such pages, because it's not worth the effort. This reduces the quality of information on Misplaced Pages. Real experts rely on facts and consensus; it is the tacit approval of the community watching a particular page that gives them credibility, not their own assertion of expertise. Avt tor (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this will be the 40th time I've had to rebut this argument. What does a reader know about the history page? They have no clue how to interpret the long list of dates on the history tab - they don't understand that Misplaced Pages saves all past versions of articles, or anything like that. All they are concerned with is getting the information, and looking for ways to find more information or verify the current information. That is the point of this template. As for the rest of your argument: you have no basis for your statement that "it's not worth the effort" to correct errors on such pages - do you have examples of misuse, or are you just imagining that such pages indicate OR, unverifiability, etc? The template is not saying editors are experts, or that they are the sources for the content - I don't know where you get that from. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-31 14:31Z
    • The template is for editors, so it's not relevant what average readers may or may not know. Is there a reason you think I'd waste my time addressing imaginary problems? I'm afraid I do have a basis for my opinion, and my request for counter-examples is unanswered. Avt tor (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • "Are there any examples of this template being used that aren't fairly clear violations of WP:OWN?" Oh no. This is getting so desperate for the delete side that they have resorted to implicitly questioning the good faith of the many editors who use this template because they think it makes for a better project.

        "people who ignore the page history and talk page are often not going to see controversial or unsourced edits stick" Yes, because they're usually really new editors, vandals, or long-term disruptive users heading for bans. That has nothing whatsoever to do with this template and this TfD.

        "When I see people slap a Maintained template on a page, to me it's an indication of original research, unsourced information, and likely argument if one tries to improve the page." Yet more mass bad faith assumed. Examples please? "I tend to avoid correcting errors on such pages, because it's not worth the effort." Please see WP:BOLD if you missed it on the way in. Sounds like a personal problem to me. "Real experts rely on facts and consensus; it is the tacit approval of the community watching a particular page that gives them credibility, not their own assertion of expertise." Since when is this template asserting expertise, other than expertise in having developed and/or greatly expanded the article? I find in that statement more grist for my growing suspicion that the delete voters are more bothered by the idea of this template than its actual implementation, which has indisputably so far tended to contradict those fears. But why should anyone who lives with those fears give them up for mere reality? "...and my request for counter-examples is unanswered." More chutzpah from someone whose response to a request for examples of his own has been unacknowledged. If you really want some, I've got them in my various other replies here. Daniel Case (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - and I can't see any reason why this implies WP:OWN. The definition of "expert" is not clear anyway. --Solumeiras (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Speedy"?! Why? Be so kind as to justify that recommendation against the criteria laid out in Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep. Hesperian 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Well, it's a Keep vote then, original speedy keep vote struck out. --Solumeiras (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Again and again and again ... How many times am I going to see this template here?! No issue of ownership. I've explained the reasons I regard this template useful in the previous nomination. I don't see any reason to repeat myself again in such a short period of time.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Here we go again. Why "speedy"? Against which of the criteria laid out in Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep? Hesperian 11:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • First of all, these criteria are indicative and not exhaustive. The wording is clear. And, after all, Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Second, after two previous nominations (the second less than a year ago), which resulted in a non-deletion result, and a clear tendency from "no consensus" to "keep" (verified by the on-going course of the present nomination), I think that a "speedy closing" is adequately justified. I fail to understand what the current nomination serves. Now, if you have a problem with "speedy", then just keep the "keep" part of my vote.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:SK is a deletion guideline which is not easily ignored, and this TfD does not fit into any of its categories. A previous deletion ten months ago is not sufficently recent for the renomination to be pointy (indeed it appears that the nominator was unaware of the previous TfDs) and consensus can change over time. Keeping this TfD open its full term will do no harm, and will allow more editors to have their say. Happy‑melon 21:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per numerous above. Ridiculous we need to revisit this issue. BusterD (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I add this template only to Featured Articles or Featured Lists I have worked on extensivley, and I invite others to add their names too (see for example Talk:Presque Isle State Park and this diff). Most of the FAs and FLs I have made major contributions to involve some fairly print obscure references (two examples: Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams II or Cupper's Our Priceless Heritage: Pennsylvania’s State Parks 1893-1993.) that are very likely not in your local library. I am OK with changing the wording on the template if someone can suggest a better way to do it. I do not like the "Lots of people use this to claim ownership" repetition without a single link to an example - surely there is someone who did this and has left the project (so we don't offend them) you can point to? Absent proof, I fail to see the Delete argument's case. Ruhrfisch _><>° 14:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Trevor GH5 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

14:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Mattnad (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think that this template is particularly helpful for new users to wikipedia who might not be familiar with talk pages and history pages (I was just explaining talk pages to a professor the other day - many people have no idea that talk pages even exist - we have to imagine users who are not active contributors as well). Furthermore, like other editors in this debate, I have worked on articles that require extensive research and it would he helpful to those inquiring about the sources to know who has easy access to them. Three recent examples are Analytical Review, Boydell Shakespeare Gallery, and Joseph Priestley House. All of these articles required sources that are impossible to obtain if one does not have access to a university research library or the equivalent. That someone can ask me to look something up for them is good (they don't have to leave a message out in the void of the talk page) - it helps Misplaced Pages build credibility. I would also like to point out, along with Ruhrfisch, that it is the obligation of those claiming the template is causing a problem to demonstrate that problem. The burden of proof lies with them. Awadewit | talk 19:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• That is an excellent point I had not considered, I think you are right that this template is especially useful for editors who wish to get full-text access to a particular reference used in an article, or to a reference they wish to add to an article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Nantucket County, Massachusetts

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. The template has now been expanded to include additional links and is now used on multiple articles. --Polaron | Talk 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Nantucket County, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template serves to provide a single link (the other link is always unclickable), which is already featured prominently in the introduction of either article. Basically, it is not particularly helpful or useful. --Polaron | Talk 17:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as creator These templates are common throughout the United States, even in counties with just two communities. If more articles are created, more can be added to the template; there's no reason that more cannot be created. Even as it is, it's more helpful than having a See Also section, since the same thing is added to every article. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Six other community articles have been created and added to the template, making eight different communities linked on the template. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There is no deadline, and no reason why this admittedly sparse area of Misplaced Pages shouldn't eventually be expanded on, giving this template utility as a navigational template. Happy‑melon 21:45, 29 January 2008 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Draco and the Malfoys

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Draco and the Malfoys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This navigational template only links to the one article it is used in (and two redirects to the same article) - seems unnecessary. — Guest9999 (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - unnecessary, no utility as a navigational template and would not have much utility even if all its links were active rather than redirects. Happy‑melon 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There is now no use for this template, now that articles for the bands releases, have been deleted. Hpfan9374 (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per non. SkierRMH (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2008 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

UAAP templates

Template:UAAP-ADMUf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:UAAP-DLSUf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:UAAP-FEUf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:UAAP-UEf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:UAAP-UPf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:UAAP-USTf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All these appear to be orphaned templates which have been deprecated by the very nice {{UAAPteam}}. Happy‑melon 14:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all as deprecated. JPG-GR (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:You

Template:You (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Complete waste of a template. Why not actually fix a problem such as this, rather than statically applying a tag? It is really easy to rephrase something; it takes perhaps a minute from someone's life. Are we going to begin creating templates for misplaced commas and misused periods?. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - fixing this is really not difficult. Now orphaned in mainspace. Happy‑melon 09:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• You realize this is just a shortcut for {{inappropriate person}}. A lot of editors including WikiDragons wouldn't bother or have the time to fix such an issue, which isn't always trivial. –Pomte 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Classifying oneself as a type of editor shouldn't "excuse" oneself from making a tiny correction such as that. I may also nom the other temp. -- Anonymous Dissident 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I acknowledge that it is not always trivial, as you say, but it is a waste of a template, and is redundant with about a million others I can think of. -- Anonymous Dissident 15:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The classification is stupid, I know, but people are volunteering their time to help out in whichever way they wish. Tagging an article with {{you}} is a contribution as someone else will come and fix it. If there is no {{you}}, perhaps they would just leave it be. Being a barely used/quickly fixed template. If it is redundant, then redirect or merge to those templates. –Pomte 02:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per happymelon Compwhiz II_(Contribs) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as it's covered by {{inappropriate person}}. нмŵוτнτ 01:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's using {{inappropriate person}}. Delete that first. –Pomte 02:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (mis-nomination): The template is merely a shortcut for {{inappropriate person}}, which has many mainspace uses. Anonymous Dissident, please nominate either {{inappropriate person}} with the same rationale, or re-nominate {{you}} with an applicable rationale such as "useless shortcut, creates clutter" (which should be done in a separate discussion). -- Ddxc (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no reason why it is necessary to create a new discussion just because the rationale has changed. TfD is not about voting on the veracity of the nominator's statement, but rather to use that statement to kickstart discussion on the merit of the template in general. If, in the course of that discussion, we find other potential rationales for deletion or retention, then all to the better. Happy‑melon 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless shortcut, creates clutter. --Kbdank71 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I am not happy with the idea of this template being used rather than fixing the problem. If more general grammar problems, there'll be some grammar tag or other which is more appropriate. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sometimes there are whole sections with first-person or second-person pronouns. When I'm busy and cannot just fix it, I'd still like to be able to quickly tag it so another WikiGnome will take care of it.

    But as I said, consensus that such a tag is a bad idea (which might well exist) should be formed in a TfD for {{inappropriate person}}; if that template is deleted, {{you}} will be deleted with it. -- Ddxc (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I can see no reason why the nature of this template makes it impossible to delete without deleting {{inappropriate person}} first. {{you}} is a template, templates are in the template namespace, the template namespace is managed at TfD. If it were a redirect to {{inappropriate person}}, then fair enough, send it to RfD. But a nested transclusion is not the same as a redirect - content is changed between pages in a way that does not happen with a redirect. I can't see any reason why this template can't be considered separately from {{inappropriate person}}. Happy‑melon 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Because you're now forcing editors to type {{inappropriate person||second-person}} instead of {{you}} to achieve the exact same effect. This shortcut is useful while its effect is still achievable, and clutter isn't even an issue. No one has proposed to get rid of the functionality from {{inappropriate person}}. TfD isn't just about the existence of some page, but its functionality. –Pomte 19:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Saturday Night Live season 32 episode list

Template:Infobox Saturday Night Live season 32 episode list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - template was created to place on individual articles for episodes. These episode articles are being deleted at AFD and prodded and are unlikely to survive. Regardless of whether any of the articles survive, the template is redundant to a simple link to Saturday Night Live season 32. — Otto4711 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep until they are all deleted, if that ever happens. I think consensus will soon reverse on this; & if Im wrong, then would be the time. DGG (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• All AFDs for these episode articles have closed as delete. See here and here The other similar articles, which would have been deleted through prod had DGG not disputed them, have been turned uncontroversially into redirects. The suggested change in consensus has not materialized. Otto4711 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per previous. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Saturday Night Live season 33 episode list

Template:Infobox Saturday Night Live season 33 episode list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - template was created to place on individual articles for episodes. These episode articles are being deleted at AFD and prodded and are unlikely to survive. Regardless of whether any of the articles survive, the template is redundant to a simple link to Saturday Night Live season 33. — Otto4711 (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep until they are all deleted, if that ever happens. I think consensus will soon reverse on this; & if Im wrong, then would be the time. DGG (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• All AFDs for these episode articles have closed as delete. See here and here The other similar articles, which would have been deleted through prod had DGG not disputed them, have been turned uncontroversially into redirects. The suggested change in consensus has not materialized. Otto4711 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per previous. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)