Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 15 January 17 >

January 16

[edit]

Template:For1

[edit]
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 discussion was Redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless. Why use for1 instead of for? you don;t even gain a byte of typing! Magioladitis (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:About2

[edit]
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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:About2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think the main idea behind this one was to allow piping the last parameter. Dablinks should not pipe the destination article to make it visible to the reader. Moreover, this one is orphan. I found 2 uses of it that {{about}} could be used instead. Magioladitis (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2010 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Western Norway

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western Norway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Arbitrary and all-encompassing navbox that includes pretty much every single article specific about Western Norway; however it for instance lacks cities, towns, municipalities and counties. It contains [from what I can see] every single college, secondary school, sports club (most which are amateur) and company with head office in the region with an article on Wikipedia. Many of the links are to sections in the Western Norway article. Under geography, 'lake', 'mountain' and 'river' all link to a single (of many) lake, mountain and river, respectively. Note that Western Norway not a political entity, but a colloquial region, and that there has been an eternal discussion as to whether Møre og Romsdal belongs in Western or Central Norway. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2010 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Automobile engine generation

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Automobile engine generation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this is an un-necessary duplication of the virtually identical {{Infobox Automobile engine}}, 'Infobox Automobile engine generation' serves no unique purpose over and above what {{Infobox Automobile engine}} offers. Please delete (along with its sub-page) and redirect to {{Infobox Automobile engine}}, thanks. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2010 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Expimgsrc

[edit]
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 discussion was Keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expimgsrc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant - {{bsr}} and it's user-space component are more than adequate for the intended purpose Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:40, 16 January 2010 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Expmediasrc

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expmediasrc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant - {{bsr}} and it's user-space component already cover this issue Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:40, 16 January 2010 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Specimenhint

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Specimenhint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, Intended use probably better done though modified NFCC after appropriate consultation to gain consensus, Also hard-coded signature/date :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:40, 16 January 2010 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Chicago White Sox 1st round

[edit]
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 discussion was No consensus to delete, with the suggestion to continue discussion at Template talk:Chicago White Sox 1st round or WP:Wikiproject Baseball Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicago White Sox 1st round (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As I recall, the discussion revolving around the 1st round draft pick template for the Toronto Blue Jays determined that this template was only of use if there was a page in the mainspace dedicated to the subject. As of now, there is a red link. Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm fairly new to TfD, and wouldn't want to wade into baseball-specific issues, which seem to have very well-defined customs. As a general principle, though, is the nominator's idea that we should have List of Chicago White Sox first-round draft picks before this template becomes appropriate? Seems to me like that's just an encouragement to needless listcruft, and that this template by itself pretty much fulfills the combined ends a template and a list would accomplish.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although it would be ideal for the header link to be an existing article, if one redlink is its only defect, then that doesn't seem sufficient reason for deletion. It is in use and appears to be a functional navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 16 January 2010 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Unreferenced WP

[edit]
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 discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unreferenced WP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-purpose template without any clearly defined use case--substantially redundant to "essay" tag. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above user removed the template from the page it was applied to, then nominated it for deletion. When you look at "uses" and see there are none, know that this will change, and the tag will be reapplied to WP:OUTCOMES if it survives TfD. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note (as neither support or opposition) that this template was created and briefly applied in relation to a dispute over the content and uses of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. --RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely correct, and those wanting to see the issues that prompted the author to create this template should refer to that talk page. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Those wanting to see the issues that prompted the author to create this template" should also refer to the template's talk page. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 19:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs to be developed further to clearly define uses as the nom notes, and could use versions for application only to sections or individual claims. I have fairly substantial comments on the talk page of the template. I don't believe it is "single-purpose" if what is meant by that is that it is for use on a single project page. If that were the case, I don't know that there is a need for it, but I would be surprised if WP:OUTCOMES is the only one for which it would ever be appropriate. It may overlap with essay to a degree, but I see it as distinct in at least two ways: (1) "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established" WP:ESSAYS; there are some pages in Wikipedia: namespace that as a whole or in part are put forth as statements of fact without verification and even if the language were tempered by qualification would still not appear to quite fit the essay category either by the nature of the content or the form of the writing, and as such Template:Essay would not be completely appropriate for them. An essay is not something that requires help; people may contribute or not as they like. I don't know, but perhaps WP:OWN may be more lax with essays even when they are in the Wikipedia: namespace and not userspace? There are some Wikipedia: namespace project pages which do in fact require help and handling and noting that and responding to that on the model of how it is handled in article space should come quite naturally to editors. (2) Redundant tags can serve a purpose, if they are in fact not completely redundant. For example, Template:Who is specific variation or subset of Template:Citation needed which indicates not just where a citation is needed but specifically for what purpose it is needed. There is no limit on how many templates there can be. Шизомби (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) WP:OUTCOMES lists "common outcomes" of AfDs. These "Common Outcomes" are presented as facts, while in reality they are the subjective impressions of various editors. In the past, there have been errors (such as this one) and even outright contradiction of existing Wikipedia guidelines. These problems have occurred specifically because the statements made were not supported with evidence or sourced in any way. The template was created to call attention to the fact that although the page appears to be authoritatively descriptive of a facet of Wikipedia, in fact it is not. Please see the template talk page for a more in-depth treatment of this issue. 2) The template may be appropriate for other pages which exist to report on an aspect of the state of the wiki, but in fact do not source their pronouncements/verify their facts, and therefore this template is not single purpose. Further, it can be used for sections (as per the template documentation). 3) I agree that the template would benefit from further development, but I don't think that's a good reason to delete it. That's how Wikipedia works: editors build on each other's contributions. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 20:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to my previous statement, this template does not meet any of the "Reasons to delete a template" listed at the top of this article. The nom may assert that it meets reason #2: The template is redundant to a better-designed template, namely, {{essay}} but I assert that the essay tag has a different purpose. For one thing, this template could exist on a guideline page (although one would hope that would never happen), but an essay tag and a guideline tag are mutually exclusive. The nom may assert that it meets reason #3: The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used, but I assert that it was used before the nom removed it from the page, and it has every likelihood of being used on any WP namespace page where unsourced, unreferenced, unverified statements of "fact" are made. The only other reason to delete a template is consensus, and I'm not seeing a consensus to delete it, although that is ultimately up to the admin or editor that closes this TfD. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 13:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion has been up for a week, and has no defenders except those who argue that it should apply to one specific project page. If that's not a compelling argument that it has no general purpose in Wikipedia space, I'm not sure what is. Again, "essay" is already sufficient for any purpose for which this template has been proposed. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an inaccurate characterization of what I wrote; I'm not defending it for one page only. I'm respecting the TfD by not applying the template to other pages or sections that would benefit from it. I could start listing them here, if that would help the discussion. Шизомби (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it stands right now, the template is indeed orphaned. If it is to be used on more than one page, then having a list of these pages would be helpful. In addition, a notice should be placed on the talk pages of those pages so that a wider audience can participate in the discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete All WP pages are assertions, not facts. OUTCOMES is explicitly a list of "common" outcomes, not inevitable outcomes, or policies or guidelines. If the various sections of it are not worded to make it clear that they merely represent what is usually done here, they should be clarified by discussion there. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "All WP pages are assertions, not facts" strikes me as problematic... While I grant you that "Common outcomes" does not claim they are inevitable, or policies, or guidelines, it does claim they are "common" but there is not evidence to substantiate that presently, hence the desire to address that problem as it exists there and on other WP pages. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I correct myself, Almost all WP pages are assertions. A few do give documentatble facts, such as the summary of various national copyright law. A few are devoted to documentable mechanics of the software, or data about our operations derived from it. Other than such, and the very few stating foundation policy, every guideline and policy page gives assertions, as according to WP:IAR, every one of them intrinsically has exceptions, and the statements of what we do are never definitive. The place to challenge individual statements is on that page's talk p. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that statements like "Articles on X are kept" is not stated as an opinion. It is stated as a fact. Further, editors commonly cite the page in Afd's as fact, because it is seen as a guideline (which it is not). If a page has a stated purpose to describe something (like a common outcome), it has a responsibility to let people know if that description is based on the opinions of some editors or if it is based on a more solid formulation of the evidence. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/possible keep & rewrite: As written, this template strikes me as pointy. However, I can imagine a use for it where a WP page is devoted to a critique or meta-analysis of wikipedia, its policies, or etc. In that case, it should say something like "This page contains statements about Wikipedia offered by various contributors. It should be treated as an opinion and commentary page, useful mainly for reflection on the project as a whole." --Ludwigs2 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's almost the same as {{essay}}, don't you? I'm trying to warn editors that just because it says "All articles on X are kept" doesn't mean they are: that's just what some editors think.ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not simply modify the statement? If you can point to one case where an article on X was deleted, then you can disprove the statement that "All articles on X are kept". –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 04:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current design as an unneccessary template with little usability. I note that nowhere on WP:OUTCOMES does the page assert itself as guideline or policy. To tag such with the template as currently designed would cast a negative light on such common sense explanations of the usual outcomes of AFD discussions. Send back to the drawing board perhaps. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG and Michael. Definitely pointy.Ikip 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POINT applies to cases in which there is "disagree[ment] with an established policy or guideline, or with an interpretation of such" and notes that "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it." I could use some help in understanding why the accusation of pointyness is being made here; what is the policy or guideline under disagreement, and what is the disruption? Some of the discussion here seems to be illustrating the problem that the template is meant to address: acceptance of claims on Wikipedia: space pages (such as at WP:Common outcomes) as statements of fact. They might be, but just as easily may not be; if they are not, it may be because whoever submitted it was honestly mistaken or the info is outdated, or it could be done as vandalism, though nothing leaps out as such. So I guess one could call it a "negative light," since it makes a problem transparent rather than hiding it on the talk page. The intent is a tool for improvement, just like the template it is modeled after in the articlespace (elsewhere, I've seen that some people would like those templates to be hidden as well). I had in mind the creation of something similar, but was planning to develop it as a proposal rather than be WP:BOLD, but boldness should not be punished here. If the "current design" suggests "back to the drawing board" that means the problem is one to be solved by editing as Ludwigs2 seems to suggest, and should not be dealt with by deletion, I think? It might help matters some to read Template_talk:Unreferenced_WP and Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes. They're relatively long, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Twitter. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether or not WP:OUTCOMES is in fact a policy or guideline, editors think it is. We can see this by their behavior: WP:OUTCOMES is commonly laid down as law in Afd discussions. "Keep, because WP:OUTCOMES says all high schools are kept." This means that anything that makes it onto WP:OUTCOMES becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think that if a WP namespace page is an essay, it gets the essay tag and everyone knows that everything stated is an opinion, even if it is stated like a fact. If a non-essay page says "All X on Wikipedia is handled this way," there needs to be a way to warn editors that this is not true. Saying "everyone knows that all WP namespace pages are opinions" isn't enough, because it isn't true that everyone knows this. This template has uses outside WP:OUTCOMES (and I wish talk would post that list he mentioned), and is applicable on any WP namespace page where statements of fact about wikipedia are made, but are actually "opinions in disguise." ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are huge numbers of pages in project space which are essentially "because I say so". These are improper when there is no evidence to back them up - evidence of a substantial consensus; evidence of the facts on the ground or evidence of an external nature such as legal rulings or foundation directives. The idea behind the template - that such pages require more than a handful of personal opinions - seems quite sound. Just as we prefer evidence-based medicine, so we should prefer evidence-based policy and process. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I strongly favor deleting this template. How many hours have I already wasted trying to explain to editors that the fact that the community opposes spam in articles, or that it recommends that we rely on secondary sources instead of original case reports that were published yesterday, or whatever thing the editor dislikes, does not have to be supported by a WP:Reliable source? If there's an actual problem -- that is, if you think that the 'unreferenced' page is actually wrong, instead of merely missing footnotes to conclusively support what you already believe is correct -- then {{Underdiscussion}} is available to you, but let's not have a template that will encourage WP:POINTy editors to waste our time in providing current-consensus-enshrining "references" to archived discussions at policy pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We are here to write a reliably-sourced encyclopedia, not a reliably-sourced manual for writing an encyclopedia. Many pages contain statements regarding Wikipedia which are based solely on axioms or are supported by a consensus among editors rather than any empirical evidence. I agree with DGG: disputes about the content of pages in project space should be resolved through talk page discussions, not by adding a vaguely-worded tag that undermines the entire page. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 04:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand the problem and/or the application of the template. If a WP namespace page says "Historically, all ARBCOM cases involving widgets were decided in favor of the widget," and this is not in fact true, people have no way to know that the "fact" expressed is not a fact. If it was a single statement, it would be easy to discuss on the talk page, but when a page has a hundred of them, it is better to let everyone know up front in a header template. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 04:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is relatively easy to deal with falsifiable statements such as the example you provide: if such a statement is false, then one should correct or remove it, and if there is doubt about the truthfulness of such a statement, then one could ask for evidence on the talk page. The problem lies with statements of principles, such as "Wikipedia is not a battleground", which are presented and treated as fact. There can be no clear and objective evidence for such a statement, since it is a product of a consensus derived from Wikipedia:Five pillars.
    Can you provide an example page, other than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, on which this template could or should (in your opinion) be used? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just about every policy page would benefit from the addition of this tag - please find me an example of one which would not. Claiming consensus is no answer if there is no evidence of the supposed consensus. See WT:MOS#Recording consensus for some current discussion about this widespread inadequacy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Claiming consensus is no answer if there is no evidence of the supposed consensus." I believe that you are conflating two distinct issues: absence of evidence and failure to prominently display evidence. Evidence of consensus can usually be found in talk page archives. Placing this tag on a policy page instead of searching the archives or taking a moment to ask someone to point to a relevant discussion is akin to sending in a special forces team to deal with a hostage situation without bothering to check whether there are any hostages in the sense that both situations involves a rush to action without prior evaluation of the need for such action.
    If there is a question about the validity of a particular statement or section in a policy page, is it not far less confrontational to deal with it by starting a discussion on the talk page rather than by demanding evidence? –Black Falcon (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with much of what has been said above. Unlike in the mainspace there has never been any requirement in the project space to source assertions, though this template suggests otherwise. Similarly there are no policies or guidelines like WP:V and WP:RS to suggest how anything should be sourced, and this template is far from clear on what those adding it want. What would be required as sourcing? Articles from outside Wikipedia? Statistics from an editor's investigation? A link to a discussion? As it stands you can add this template to a large number of policy and guideline pages, suggesting the wider community does not believe that content in the project space requires sources. If policies and guidelines are changed to say that sources are need on project pages, then this template can be used more usefully, but until that happens it is not helpful. The best way to ensure something has consensus is to discuss it on the talk page, noting that much of the content in the project space does not require consensus (e.g. regular essays). There is also the {{disputedtag}} tag for questioning the status of a page. As for WP:OUTCOMES on which this template was originally intended for; this page is a simple recording of facts on what has happened at AfD in the past, not what policies, guidelines, or wider consensus say. The origin of this template seems to be editors unhappy with WP:OUTCOMES being used to back-up arguments at AfD. I agree that this is problematic, though {{essay}} has not stopped editors citing WP:ATA as policy, I doubt this template will do much better. If a more clear warning that the page may not be in-line with polices and guidelines is wanted than one can be individually crafted for that page; the question on if projectspace pages need sourcing or not is really a separate issue. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you don't agree with an essay, then discuss it on the talk page or somewhere else, or write your own essay. Don't slap a passive voice template on it. Also, project pages are not supposed to be referenced anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can sympathize in some cases with the idea behind this - there are certainly POV-pushing and WP:OWNed "Wikipedia"-namespace pages that advance opinions as facts - but this template serves no real purpose than to express disapproval. Simply putting it on a page will lead to an editwar. This isn't dispute resolution but anti-resolution, so it should be deleted on the basis of innumerable precedents of deletion of divisive templates. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 10:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this: In practice, this will lead to extensive metadiscussions about just which essays etc. should get the template, and provide another unnecessary place for argument. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 19 January 2010 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WPbox

[edit]
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 discussion was No consensus to delete now that the template's use has been restricted to wikiproject space Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template which is being used to create Self-references to wikipedia, specifically wikiprojects. While this box might have some utility in non-article space, (Wikipedia, User, maintenance categories), it is currently being used in article space, and it and any derivative templates should be deleted and removed from article space. Optigan13 (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This template may be used for WikiProject reference in an article, however it confines the link to a floating linkbox at the right side of See also section to denote that it is not a part of the article. This template is currently used in 346 articles. This template provides a link to a catagorized WikiProject in some of these articles, but links to other WikiProjects in many other articles. See Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals and Africa for examples. This template is compatible with Template:Portal which is used throughout Wikipedia. The presence of this template may provide access to additional article resources while encouraging participation in the WikiProject. I believe this avoids the distraction of WikiProject self-references. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't link to project pages from articles. Portals are encyclopedia content, so the "compatibility" with {{portal}} is irrelevant. These boxes—and similar noticeboard templates like {{Ireland NB}}—were added to a large number of articles without any consensus. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Talk pages are for wikiproject ads, not articles. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete? To delete a template because it may be used inappropriately is rather like prohibiting all water because someone could drown. Buaidh (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alter: Then change the documentation! I will happily change the documentation of this template and all templates that invoke this template. I don't think this template violates the spirit of Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid, but if there is a consensus to the contrary, I will remove these templates from any article that is in the same WikiProject category. Buaidh (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In general the template is used in good faith....i would also bet that its use helps in promoting editing threw WikiProject (which for most new users is there first introduction to the HOW TO'S of WIKI). Having a link to a page with people all interested in a topic ..i would think is one of the foundations that Wikipedia depends on. I can only speak from my experience, but links of this nature brings like minded people together. Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change the documentation to reflect the fact that it cannot be used in NS:0 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Andrwsc summed up my thoughts quite well: portals are reader-oriented and part of the encyclopedia, whereas WikiProjects are editor-oriented project pages. I am also concerned about the possibility that effectively "stamping" articles with WikiProject boxes could give the wrong impression about the extent to which a WikiProject has 'authority' over the content of an article. If a valid and general use outside of the main namespace can be suggested, then I would be fine with keeping the template and restricting its use to non-mainspace pages. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure they'd be all that useful on non-mainspace pages, because of their size and location. Traditional WikiProject banner notices serve the purpose well enough without having to invent another alternative. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that's true. The current non-mainspace uses of the template do not seem to justify its existence. The template is used in Talk:New Zealand, where it duplicates Template:WPNZ, and in Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado, where it merely illustrates the template's use. Perhaps the only place where it is used well is Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals, but it's not worth keeping 50+ templates (e.g., {{Pennsylvania WPbox}}) for just one projectspace list. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 07:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: A simple modification to this template will inhibit its display in NS:0. This will permit the template and its descendents to continue operating at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals but preclude its use in articles. Buaidh (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it would improve participation in wikiprojects to have this minor link in directly associated articles. Just have a stringent rule that it must be placed in "See also" and any other location is prohibited. Wikiprojects are key to the success of this encyclopedia, and we shouldn't hide them. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the sole purpose of this template is to create self-references, which are clearly deprecated. I was tempted to say "keep" provided its use in article space is disabled, but on reflection that's pointless because projects already have their own banners to apply to to talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: I have updated the documentation for this template to exclude its use in the main namespace. I have begun removing all invocations in the main namespace. Nevertheless, the intrusion of a single WikiProject linkbox into the See also section of an article seems rather insignificant compared with the mega-billboard advertisements for donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. This seems exceedingly incongruous. We should reexamine the rigidity of our policy at some time in the future. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes made: The 80 descendant templates of Template:WPbox have been excluded from the main namespace, and all invocations of WPbox have been removed from the main namespace. All documentation has been updated to reflect the exclusion. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are the descendant templates necessary in the first place given that the documentation of Template:WPbox indicates that the template can handle parameters for individual WikiProjects? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A few comments
        1. I think the individual project templates are there to standardize the usage, so if the image or other component needed to be adjusted, it could be done from the template without several edits. This came up at Portal talk:California#Portal link images where there were multiple different images in use. I think the portal templates are a good thing for standardization, but as was previously noted portals are reader facing.
        2. Why add the namespace logic to the individual templates? This looks like a meta-template, and I don't see where you wouldn't want an implementation without the namespace detection feature.
        3. I still don't see the utility of this and related templates. Looking at Talk:Guam (oldid), the {{Guam WGbox}} is redundant to {{WikiProject Micronesia|Guam=yes}}. Although the banner template doesn't show the Guam workgroup when collapsed, that is an adjustment to be made to the banner, not a new template. Additionally, the WPBox doesn't add any assessment categories for WP:1.0 purposes. Continued use of these kind of templates in places where the WP:SELFREF guideline don't apply is redundant to talk page banners, and would eventually lead to the same issues we currently have with banners. I still don't see the utility of these boxes over existing banners. Even with the removal from article namespace, I don't see anything that doesn't make these redundant. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rationale: My original intent for these templates was to create a special inobtrusive WikiProject promotion for the See also section of relevant main namespace articles. Since several knowledgeable editors find these templates objectionable, I excluded these templates from the main article namespace. This leaves them available for special uses such as the Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals, or as links to WikiProjects and work groups on User pages. If, at some time in the future, we decide that a special linkbox to the WikiProject is permissible in the See also section of relevant articles, these templates can be easily permitted back in the main article namespace. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as modified Buaidh (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still feel deletion is the best course with this template. The template itself hasn't been modified to keep out of NS:0, the individual templates which use this one have. In the future if someone made a new derivative box without applying namespace detection it would still be displayed. Now that the other uses have been removed, the only page these are still used on is Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals, which is primarily a list of portals, and not wikiprojects. Usage in userspace is redundant to userboxes, and usage in all other namespaces are redundant to relevant project banners, which already include a portal link as part of the standard meta banner usage. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:28, 16 January 2010 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_16&oldid=1148682925"