Misplaced Pages

:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 17: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:20, 18 May 2006 editD-Day (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,395 edits →[]: KEEP← Previous edit Revision as of 23:24, 18 May 2006 edit undoSchutz (talk | contribs)Administrators8,575 edits →Metadata templates: keep, at least {{featured article}}Next edit →
Line 114: Line 114:
*'''Keep''', none seem to meet any of the requirements of TfD, and I dare say they all are helpful to the encyclopedia project. ] 21:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''', none seem to meet any of the requirements of TfD, and I dare say they all are helpful to the encyclopedia project. ] 21:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Do you hate blind people or something? What's going on? --]] 23:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Do you hate blind people or something? What's going on? --]] 23:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' {{tl|featured article}}; '''Weak Keep''' {{tl|Spoken Misplaced Pages}}; '''Delete''' {{tl|Japan article}}. The template {{tl|featured article}} has already been useful to me, more than once. The "slippery slope" argument is irrelevant here; if we don't want templates to copy {{tl|featured article}} and proliferate, that's fine, let's just delete them. But it has no implication whatsoever on the existence of {{tl|featured article}} itself. ] 23:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


==== ] ==== ==== ] ====

Revision as of 23:24, 18 May 2006

< May 16 May 18 >

May 17, 2006

Template:Link FA

{{Link FA}}
(Per the metadata nominations below) - Another metadata template which violates policy. Raul654 21:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Which policy does it violate? Kusma (討論) 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ditto, I must say this is a very useful template, and when I saw someone add it to a page I thought it was genious!. It is as it always was 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The policy is to keep metadata out of articles (so as to make them re-usable outside of wikipedia). Raul654 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see how metadata makes it harder to reuse the content. See also Misplaced Pages:Persondata, which puts lots of invisible metadata on article pages. Does this violate policy? Kusma (討論) 22:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Meta-data, in this case, refers to Misplaced Pages-related designations (featured article, good article, stub, 'etc), which are of no interest to anyone outside of Misplaced Pages. These makes it *MUCH* harder to run a coherent mirror and have to be specially deleted. Raul654 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I would like to hear from someone who actually runs a mirror how we can best help them. For example, we do have {{selfref}}, we could also make sure all metadata is wrapped in a standard form that our mirrors recognize. I am all for helping mirrors run by people communicating their problems to us; not doing useful things here because they might break on mirrors is not a valid reason to me. Kusma (討論) 22:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
              • It's not just about web mirrors (although that is one of the most common reuses). Basically anyone who reuses wikipedia text is negatively impacted by meta-data pollution in articles. That's why talk pages were invented in the first place - to avoid just this. Raul654 22:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Have you just started a fight against {{cleanup}}, {{NPOV}} and all stub templates? There are so many useful Misplaced Pages-related templates used on articles that maybe some other solution than removing all of them (that seems to be what you want) is more appropriate. Kusma (討論) 22:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • Moving them to the talk pages would be most appropriate. And the fact that stub (an ancient tag invented back in the days when good practices weren't well defined) exists should not be used as a justification for more bad templates. Raul654 22:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete: as per {{featured article}}, this looks to me like pointless bragging. If I need the French (say) version of an article, then I need it, regardless of its quality, which I will be able to evaluate for myself by cunning use of the big slimy thing between my ears. I find it hard to believe that there are many people who choose between the French, Hebrew or Scots version of an article based on which one has a gold star. — Johan the Ghost seance 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per {{featured article}} - yes, keep metadata down as far as possible, but this is useful metadata. There is little enough inter-language-wiki co-operation: it is helpful to know that a poor :en article has an excellent cousin at :fr or :de or wherever - these are prime candidates for augmentation by translation. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template aids significantly in identifying which articles should use {{FAOL}}, as well as to indicate ordinary editors that a sister Misplaced Pages may have more information than our own, in case they understand the relevant language. Titoxd 01:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "aids significantly in identifying which articles should use {{FAOL}}": Isn't that rather spurious logic? Person A puts the star on the article, to hint to person B that he/she should put {{FAOL}} in the talk page? Why didn't person A just put {{FAOL}} in the talk page? — Johan the Ghost seance 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Raul654. I was okay with the FA star for our own featured articles at first, but this is just unnecessary. — Rebelguys2 03:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, helpful in transwikiing good content. Also, if a reader is bilingual and sees an FA on his other language's article, he might read that one instead because it's likely to be more accurate. --Rory096 05:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, cut the spread of this crap. It makes Misplaced Pages looks like a self-righteous joke. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's so unobtrusive and useful to know at a glance that you're looking at a featured quality article. - Phorque 09:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, anoither one of the rare cases in which metadata is useful enough to make the tradeoff against database purity worthwhile. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Setting aside the 'self congratulatory' objection (which is a matter of perspective and could as easily be applied to the concept of 'Featured' articles in general) the primary issue here seems to be portability... if the template is not copied over to wherever then it appears as a red-link or printed text or something else unintended. Can't this be solved with CSS, the 'selfref' template, or some other means? I'd like to see a global 'do not mirror this content' identifier which could be put around all the 'cleanup', 'stub', 'link FA', 'metadata', 'spoilers', et cetera. Possibly a no-mirror 'magic word' such as {{nm:linkfa}} or <nomirror> tags. Stuff of this nature has always existed and always will exist on Misplaced Pages. We should be looking for better ways to exclude it from mirrors/printouts rather than fighting over which are and are not useful enough to retain. I don't have a strong opinion on whether this particular 'metadata' is a net positive or negative... but I think fighting over that issue is silly when it ought to be possible to retain the positive aspects of all metadata while removing the negative impacts on mirrors. --CBDunkerson 12:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The "self-congratulatory" issue does not apply in general if it's kept to the talk page. The article namespace is not the place for that kind of thing; the article namespace should strive for the quality and neutrality of a good encyclopedia. You don't see articles in Britannica with footnotes to the effect that "isn't this a great article!". — Johan the Ghost seance 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. For one thing, it is a good reference if you are looking for material to improve the article that is FA in another language. Second, it is a nice example of cooperation between different languages. And third, it is not a fancy coloured template that covers half a page, I don't see why you find it annoying. --Tone 12:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was pleasently surprised when I saw these unobtrusive markings on the interlanguage links, and they do serve a useful purpose to the encyclopedia. By pointing to featured articles in other languages, they give editors a chance to improve the English articles by incorporating information from the featured ones in other languages, which can only be a Good Thing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral, what really needs to go is the whole concept of Featured Articles. WP:OWNership gets really bad after an article has become an FA, with the people who worked towards getting there fighting to keep any substantial change away from the article. Which is a real pity considering how badly written most featured articles are. So yeah, delete this template, and delete the whole idea behind this template. Angr (t • c) 15:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a very useful peice of metadata. Identifying high-quality information is a very useful tool, and can only help Misplaced Pages's reputation when the good stuff is easy to find. If the good stuff is available in another language, and someone speaks that language, why shouldn't they be alerted to this fact? The key is providing useful information, after all... and I also agree that it makes translation from that other article more likely, {{FAOL}} is a good template for talk pages, but when looking up information, I don't always GO to the talk page. In fact, I would hazard a guess that there are thousands, or millions of users of wikipedia who are not usually editors who NEVER go to talk pages... but they might know the other language, and on seeing the star, might consider translating it for us. I understand that too much metadata clogs things up for users mirrors alike, but we need to figure out where "too much" lies, and I argue that it doesn't lie here. This peice of metadata, I would argue, is useful TO users, including and esspecially for non-editor users, and mirrors can strip it out. Fieari 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. CTOAGN (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Series box

Template:Series box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is a copy of the well-known Template:Succession box. It was created about a year ago and used exclusively on Church of Latter Day Saints figures. I've orphaned it with AWB and now request its deletion. Mackensen (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Bibleref

Template:Bibleref (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template does the same thing as Template:bibleverse, There was a proposal for merger some time ago and nothing really came of it. I think that Template:Bibleverse should "win" because:

  1. it was first (made 29 March 2005 as opposed to 18 February 2006)
  2. bibleverse is more widely used (over 200 v. about 50)
  3. it has more advanced features.

see Template talk:Bibleverse#merge for other comments on this issue. Jon513 19:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If someone does the legwork and converts all 50 or so inclusions to bibleverse, I'd support a Delete, but if we delete the template before the links are switched over, then we break all those pages. Any volunteers?--Andrew c 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any relevant features, and leave the page as a redirect to said better template. Everyone wins! – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Template:Bibleref has disadvantages: it does not allow book names with spaces in them "Samuel 2" or "2 Samuel", but would require "2-Samuel" or "2Sam" while the former are common references; it is restricted in its available sources. Its only perceivable advantages are a somewhat simpler usage, and independence of an intermediary 3rd-party script. But these are no huge advantage. The merge should not be difficult to do with a bot. Its only complicated logic would be those numbered books again. jnothman 08:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Jon513. IZAK 09:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I dont currently have the time needed to change the links over. Are the two formats suitably similar to have a bot do the transformation, or at least most of the work? Ansell Review my progress! 11:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Oftvandalized

Template:Oftvandalized (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hurts the layout of the popular articles it is added to, and doesn't help much re vandalism. Karl Meier 19:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Metadata templates

Template:Featured article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Spoken Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Japan article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (already listed on 16 May)
(and any others that happen to be created in the future)

(Per the Template:Hong_Kong_article discussion below) All of these place icons in the top-right of articles. I was *adamantly* against creating a featured article template. I said it would inevitably cause a proliferation, and sure enough I was right. Kill them all. They violate policy, they clutter articles, and they break the layout of non-monobook skins. Raul654 18:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment In my opinion, showing that the article is featured or has a spoken version dramatically enhances usabilty. Is there a hope of a MediaWiki workaround for this in the future, that would allow these sort of icons to be associated with pages without ugly hacks to the templates? Twinxor t 07:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Japan - These really should have been listed separately... note the number of people voting different things on each template. I don't think the other two are absolutely critical to have, but I don't see them as significant problems either. Thus no reason to delete. Having icons for more common topics like 'Japan' just opens the door too wide. --CBDunkerson 12:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist them separately. Too different to vote at the same time. --Tone 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. If there's a spoken version of an article, the template on the talk page is sufficient. And per my comments above, eliminate the entire wrongheaded idea of having "featured articles". Angr (t • c) 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep {{featured article}} and Weak Keep {{Spoken Misplaced Pages}} for sheer usefulness to the average non-editor reader. The featured article template indicates we believe this article to be quality, which is useful to know for reliability's sake, and the spoken article icon could be useful to the handcapped, although the larger template also shows up, and kinda makes the spoken article icon unnessesary. I personally wouldn't mind replacing the larger spoken template with the icon alone, however. Users who need the spoken article can still look for it and find it, and users who don't care won't have their articles cluttered. Wikiprojects, on the other hand, are not useful to have such symbols for readers. They are useful to editors alone, and even then... not really useful to those editors, I don't think. Editors read talk pages, after all, while non-editors usually don't. So Strong Delete the Japan one. Fieari 17:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unuseful and exceedingly unattractive. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, none seem to meet any of the requirements of TfD, and I dare say they all are helpful to the encyclopedia project. PoptartKing 21:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Do you hate blind people or something? What's going on? --mboverload@ 23:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep {{featured article}}; Weak Keep {{Spoken Misplaced Pages}}; Delete {{Japan article}}. The template {{featured article}} has already been useful to me, more than once. The "slippery slope" argument is irrelevant here; if we don't want templates to copy {{featured article}} and proliferate, that's fine, let's just delete them. But it has no implication whatsoever on the existence of {{featured article}} itself. Schutz 23:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Picture of the Week

Template:Picture of the Week (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
delete as confusingly similar to template:pic of the day --M@rēino 16:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC) moved template to a better name, it was confusing. Delete please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baku87 (talk • contribs)

Template:User blank

This template gives the user too much leeway. The user can write anything he wants using it.QuizQuick 17:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Hong Kong article

Template:Hong Kong article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template "places places a small Hong Kong Article symbol (Disneyland Resort Station) in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is an article related to Hong Kong" - see Hong Kong for an example, where it conflicts with the {{featured article}} star and the {{Spoken Misplaced Pages}} icon (I am beginning to think that the latter should go too).

It - and any others of its ilk - should be deleted for the same reason as the {{good article}} symbol: we do not clutter up the main article space with this sort of metadata. These articles should be identified, if need be, by a template on the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Tri Nations Aggregate

Template:Tri Nations Aggregate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Used only on one page, code has been moved to that page. No longer needed. Is actually used on another article. Cvene64 06:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Auteurs

Template:Auteurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Silly, just a list of someone's favorite directors; there are thousands of directors who can be called auteurs and thery can't all be put here. It's a huge ugly box as well. The Singing Badger 01:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy, verging onto T1 Will (@) T 09:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ick

Template:Ick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - divisive, verging on POV, offensive, created by brand new user who has suddenly shown up declaring him/herself a cleanup patroller and vandal hunter. Comments about such tags should never go to a particular user's Talk page, but should always go to the article's talk page. Template is offensive. User:Zoe| See also Template:Byepage, Template:Conlink, Template:Notalot, Template:Ruderude. 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)