Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article under Construction

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article under Construction

This page suggests that editors should copy the markup for the grey box containing the text "This Article/Project/Template is Under Construction !! Learn more" and paste it in an article they are working on. This is contrary to accepted practices described in Wikipedia:Template namespace and Help:Template. That is, they describe the need to use templates to add something to multiple pages, not direct HTML/CSS markup, which is meant to be used sparingly in articles per MOS:MARKUP. Functionally, the page is a very poor substitute for Template:Under construction, and brings no advantage to Wikipedia. In fact it brings detriment, because at least on one occassion, a user followed the advice (while looking for the actual template), leading to a poor result seen here (more information here). The page contains no particular insight or thought that goes beyond the documentation and everyday usage of the actual template. Based on all of this, it can be deleted. Alternatively, I suppose that it could be moved to userspace. tw^sabin 20:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add: originally this was created in the template namespace, and was moved. This shows pretty clearly that the page is a result of a WP:CIR issue, such that an editor wanted to create a template, not knowing how to create one, when such a template had already existed. tw^sabin 20:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Twsabin: There's also a related "essay" → Wikipedia:TUC 192.76.8.77 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basically a duplicate of {{Under construction}}/{{In use}} but worse in every conceivable way. The box you are supposed to add to articles is not an actual template and needs to be manually copy pasted to each page, and its design is a massive MOS:ACCESSIBILITY fail, black on dark grey is not a good colour choice. This page itself is a massive rambling rant written in such poor English it is borderline WP:G1 material (sample sentences What happens in the initial stage of the page, article or project, the information on that particular page, article or project may not be right and the editor too edits in trials and errors in this initial stage of editing. or perhaps To avoid this the Under Construction box is introduced so that it will be considered if there are trials and errors on that particular page, article or project.). Most of the documentation is focused on the nonsense claim that adding this box to a page makes it exempt from deletion, something that has no backing in policy and is highly misleading. The remaining content contains a section on how to identify unfinished pages, a quiz to get people to guess which template they're supposed to be copy pasting (a proper template would do this with namespace detection) and a talk page thanks you can give to people for adding it to pages. I see no use for this, we already have a template that performs the same function, it is so badly written it is almost patent nonsense and it contains several highly misleading claims about how it makes your new page exempt from deletion. Delete. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what in the heck did I just read... Elli (talk | contribs) 06:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also going to bundle the related Wikipedia:TUC here, hope no one minds. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So confusing it feels like the garfield oven quote. Also, the page was made without consensus as to its effect (stopping the deletion process) which means it is certainly going to be ignored during a deletion discussion (especially a speedy one). Finally, from what I can glean, it serves a purpose which is already served by New Page Reviewers and Draftspace. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 15:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essentially incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2022 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.