| Revision as of 12:33, 27 September 2006 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 editsm →[] and []: typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:35, 27 September 2006 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits →[] and []: more commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| ****Obviously, the way articles are written is entirely different from the way guidelines or policy are created. We have a host of quality-related tags for articles that could not be meaningfully applied to guidelines, and this is one of them. ] 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | ****Obviously, the way articles are written is entirely different from the way guidelines or policy are created. We have a host of quality-related tags for articles that could not be meaningfully applied to guidelines, and this is one of them. ] 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| It is helpful, in my opinion to tag policies, guidelines and essays that are disputed, or currently in dispute. Sometimes all looks serene and calm on the front page, and then when you go into the talk page, a raging storm of argument is uncovered. There needs to be a way to address this. ] 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | It is helpful, in my opinion to tag policies, guidelines and essays that are disputed, or currently in dispute. Sometimes all looks serene and calm on the front page, and then when you go into the talk page, a raging storm of argument is uncovered. There needs to be a way to address this. ] 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :See also ] and ] - how does an essay, policy or guideline go from one end of the spectrum (fully working) to the other (rejected) without some intermediate stage like being tagged as disputed? Consensus changes over time, and there needs to be a way for policy change to take place (though not too fast). ] 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==== ] ==== | ==== ] ==== | ||
Revision as of 12:35, 27 September 2006
| < September 26 | September 28 > |
|---|
September 27
Template:Disputedtag and Template:Disputedpolicy
"The status of this page is disputed". The usage of these templates is based on a misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines work, and how they are created. Specifically, they are used either when there's consensus for a policy or guideline but someone disagrees with that consensus (because if there wasn't a consensus, the page wouldn't be policy or guideline), or when someone believes that a page hasn't followed the "official process" of becoming policy or guideline (which is a vacuous truth since we don't have such a process). The vision of essay/guideline/policy as a "hierarchy" between which pages can be "promoted" is simply not how Misplaced Pages works. See also WP:POL. >Radiant< 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There are often edit wars over whether a page is guideline/policy/essay/concept or whatever (for instance, WP:IAR and WP:AFDC have both had tag-changes). It helps to have some interim tag to use while the dispute is resolved. --ais523 10:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there are edit wars, but those are almost always the result of people not understanding how Misplaced Pages policy works or is created, and this template does nothing to alleviate that. IAR was declared policy by Jimbo, so there's no argument there; AFDC is a textbook example of how not to create a guideline. >Radiant< 10:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion, WP:AFDC is a process, not policy, guidline, essay, or WikiProject. WP:DPR is at present untagged and catted only in Category:Misplaced Pages deletion, which is probably what's right for AFDC; in fact, I'll go and change it. Your comment above is not very persuasive; "there are edit wars, but they're the result of people disagreeing with me" would be a slightly different but equally unpersuasive argument. The problem here is that often all sides in an edit war think that the answer is obvious and that other participants are just don't understand policy/process/whatever (often, some of them will be right, but many of them may also be wrong); the tags are needed whilst the argument is ongoing. I don't think {{NPOV}} would be deleted on the basis that "POV-pushing is almost always the result of people not understanding the NPOV policy", so your argument doesn't convince me. --ais523 10:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously, the way articles are written is entirely different from the way guidelines or policy are created. We have a host of quality-related tags for articles that could not be meaningfully applied to guidelines, and this is one of them. >Radiant< 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion, WP:AFDC is a process, not policy, guidline, essay, or WikiProject. WP:DPR is at present untagged and catted only in Category:Misplaced Pages deletion, which is probably what's right for AFDC; in fact, I'll go and change it. Your comment above is not very persuasive; "there are edit wars, but they're the result of people disagreeing with me" would be a slightly different but equally unpersuasive argument. The problem here is that often all sides in an edit war think that the answer is obvious and that other participants are just don't understand policy/process/whatever (often, some of them will be right, but many of them may also be wrong); the tags are needed whilst the argument is ongoing. I don't think {{NPOV}} would be deleted on the basis that "POV-pushing is almost always the result of people not understanding the NPOV policy", so your argument doesn't convince me. --ais523 10:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there are edit wars, but those are almost always the result of people not understanding how Misplaced Pages policy works or is created, and this template does nothing to alleviate that. IAR was declared policy by Jimbo, so there's no argument there; AFDC is a textbook example of how not to create a guideline. >Radiant< 10:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It is helpful, in my opinion to tag policies, guidelines and essays that are disputed, or currently in dispute. Sometimes all looks serene and calm on the front page, and then when you go into the talk page, a raging storm of argument is uncovered. There needs to be a way to address this. Carcharoth 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- See also Category:Wikipedia_rejected_proposals and Template:rejected - how does an essay, policy or guideline go from one end of the spectrum (fully working) to the other (rejected) without some intermediate stage like being tagged as disputed? Consensus changes over time, and there needs to be a way for policy change to take place (though not too fast). Carcharoth 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Alaska Communities
Unused template. Docu 06:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Template:UserWP Avril Lavigne
A strange template, which reads more like a userbox. Not currently in use by any editor. Created along with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Avril Lavigne, which is also currently nominated for deletion. -- Longhair\ 07:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Template:RTEp
This is a big unwieldy template called "Successful television programmes produced by Radio Telefís Éireann". Its really a matter of opinion what constitutes successful, and it looks a bit like an advert for RTE. This would quickly become unworkable if extended to other television companies. JW 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Template:Birth date and age
A template just to add one's age is superfluous; the birth date is already listed there. Shannernanner 12:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I don't see how it isn't useful. It helps the math(s) challenged. - Dudesleeper 12:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Definitely very useful. Sloan21 12:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)