Misplaced Pages

:Templates for discussion - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vague Rant (talk | contribs) at 12:57, 12 November 2004 (→November 5: {{Nintendochar}}, delete.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:57, 12 November 2004 by Vague Rant (talk | contribs) (→November 5: {{Nintendochar}}, delete.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Sometimes, we want to delete things in the Template namespace. This is particularly used for article series boxes that are either not noteworthy, are redundant with categories, or which have simply been orphaned. For guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable article series box, see Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes. If you vote to keep a series box, be prepared to explain how it fulfills the criteria set up at this page,

Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing. However, templates should be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done manually.

Note that, in addition to voting "Keep" or "Delete," a valid vote on this page is "Convert to category." In this case, all pages with the template should be added to an appropriately named category, and the template should be deleted.

To list a template on this page, add it to the list below under the appropriate date. Link to it as ] instead of as {{Insert template here}}. When listing a template on this page, add {{tfd}} to the top of the template itself. This will add the following text to the template:

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

When adding this message to templates that are in the form of series boxes, the message should be placed inside the box, to make it clear what is being proposed for deletion. When being added to templates which have already been blanked, and are just sitting around as blanks, the message should be added to the template talk page. Again, do not blank templates to list them here - this is just if the template is already blank when you are listing it.

Articles that have been listed for more than one week are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objects to its deletion have been raised. Such templates should be dealt with as soon as possible. Archived discussions are located at /Log.

Votes for deletion (VfD) subpages: copyright problems -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- categories -- templates

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log

Listings

Please put new listings at the bottom of the page.

October 26

October 28

November 1

November 4

November 5

  • Template:OoP mess - Completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This serves only to incite problems related to the Israeli POV edit war. -- Netoholic @ 15:35, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
    • This was not my intention, but Neoholic is not the first to think so, so I guess I could use some help in formulation. My intention was to solve the following problem: so many moves and literal copies have been made, it became difficult to track the authorship of text bordering on GFDL violation. Netoholic, would you suggest an alternative formulation? Feel free to edit both the template and the text in my subpage. Gady 15:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I reformulated the template to be less contentious. Netoholic, is that OK? Gady 16:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I think its just not useful. The message only appears on a few pages and is too limited to be used outside of this particular issue. This isn't what templates are for. -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
    • Would you prefer if the text were replicated between these (now 9) pages? Gady 17:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • delete. inappropriate to draw personal attn --Jiang 05:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Replicate the text instead. —AlanBarrett 06:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't understand the logic here. Why replicate the text? This very discussion shows that this would do nothing except incur extra work. Somebody thought the formulation was contentious — I changed it. In one place. Claiming that templates should only be used when there are (say) at least 50 uses is the computer programming equivalent of saying "do not write a routine unless it's used in at least 50 places". Gady 20:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful information used in many articles. Jayjg 23:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 6

November 10

November 11

    • I disagree strongly. The difference between "This article is totally disputed" and "parts of this article are disputed, while others have reached concensus" is not trivial. I can't help but think that this is an attempt to avoid discussing your attempts to remove the Controversial3 tag from the 2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities page. --Spud603 19:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree with deletion (reasons below), and note that Netaholic's actions seems to suggest he wants a overstated tag rather than an accurate one on the article. He also seems to have something against Templates, judging by the number he's voting to delete above. FT2 20:07, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Also disagree with deletion and second Spud603's claim that Netoholic listed Controversial3 for deletion in leui of debating its applicability on the election controversy talk page. This may be a pattern, Netoholic also listed election controversy images for deletion without talk page mention. Netoholic removed links to the page from other articles without mention, attempted to orphan the page when at least a half a dozen people disagreed with him. And now the page itself is listed for deletion, there is little doubt there is a systematic pattern. After others have catogorically rejected is interpretation of wikipedia guideliness he proceeds anyway. In my opinion he has not bothered with consensus building or debate, which has worked against him because some of his claims are valid. I refer to all relevant users' histories in this matter to back up my claims. Zen Master 20:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
FT2's comment on {{Controversial2}} and {{Controversial3}} templates:
I have been struck that many good articles become gridlocked under LOCK or NPOV tags. Thats not the wiki way. I concluded that a big part of the problem is that most people with objections tend to use only a few (fairly strong) templates, when in fact neutrally these may not be good descriptively. I wrote my conclusions on Village Pump (Policy) here on Nov 9, which summarises the problem, cross references it, gives examples and shows how more appropriate templates can help resolve the issue. I wrote a comment on Nov 10 at the end of Template_talk:Controversial (please also read) noting there were different ways an article could be controversial, so 2 or 3 templates to fairly refect each were needed. This is important, because to wrongly tag an article is in its own way, more misleading than to wrongly write it - at one stroke it adds an entire POV which if not accurate is a problem. It also polarises debate.
Example of this approach at work: one article was suffering an edit/revert war, principally over whether the subject matter was POV and what should be covered by the article. Facts within the article were not disputed. The edits moved between "NPOV" and "nothing". I re-tagged the article to a tag, {{TitleNPOV}}, that explicitly said there was a dispute over neutrality of the title - and since then the effect has been that productive debate has resumed, with both sides feeling this is a more accurate description and hence respectful of their views, in effect by tagging it correctly as "this title or scope is in dispute but the contents are not", a consensus was created which previous templates had failed to do.
As a serious wiki-ist involved as best I'm able (when I have the time) in
It is my experience that a correct tag permits compromise and co-operation. Hence I created these two tags plus another Template:ActiveDiscuss to allow articles being worked on or subject to dispute to be marked as "actively being developed" or "partly disputed", so that future wiki-ists can actually build articles and not get caught up so often in edit wars over one side tagging everything as disputed, the other side untagging everything as OK. The truth's normally in between, and Misplaced Pages will gain from having a few templates that allow contributors to say this. FT2 19:47, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree with removing this very strongly. These seem quite reasonable! Not everything is totally disputed. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Granularity of dispute is to be encouraged. - Amgine 06:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Holding Cell

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (Admin or otherwise) should remove them from pages so that they can be deleted. If you've cleared a page, note it here.

Remove Entirely

Convert to category

Footer

Category: