Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 16

2465:. But that lost some momentum. So this decision is somewhat dangling at the moment. Needs sure carefully rethinking before going there (but that decision can wait). As per the merge histories: I think this isn't worth the trouble because we had to introduce a temporary template anyway to do the move because not all 1,500 calls can be migrated in the same minute to lower case params (there are also some protected articles and edits can also fail, even if a light speed 100% error free bot rushes around). I think we can spare us the exchange of the names of all calls back to journal reference. I also think the name issue isn't worth creating a redirect for such a high use template. All calls now use "cite journal", as previously already decided per consensus. I see no need to revisit that naming decision and change all calls back or introduce a redirect. The voters that vote here to use the old name for the new template abstained on the discussion that lead to the name "cite journal". Please also note that I already put a copy of the talk of journal reference into an archive on the talk of cite journal. That's probably the most relevant part of the "history" of journal reference. -- 4774:. I find the keeper's argument uniformly invalid. James S. is incorrect in what he says, so his 'keep' isn't useful, particularly as he recommends replacing it anyway. Locke Cole chooses to lower things to a barbed claim of bad-faith when it plainly isn't any such thing. The templates have not been reinstated as he claims he plans to do, despite a considerable delay on these and related templates. The procedural complaining is unimportant. Therefore, those saying "per Locke Cole" have similarly little basis in what they say. - 1491: 977:---We need something on talkpages to help anons and noobs with discussion guidelines, like signing comments and observing ettiquette. Most people voting here are probably veterans of Knowledge (XXG) who have visited dozens of talkpages and don't need to see this anymore. But to anons seeing only one talk page, they need to see a set of standard rules, so the talk pages can be controlled chaos indstead of total anarchy.-- 3253: 2518:: replacement is fine with me, but I do wish that this administrative work (reaching for consistency in naming and parameter conventions across templates) could have been done without disrupting article content with the deletion notice. Note that simple awareness issues around "use this template instead of that one" are not to be handled via deletion notices. User:Ceyockey ( 3343: 3321: 917:- I'm pretty sure most people never actually read their welcome message - at least I didn't. I don't think this template is too bad at all although the new one looks very nice. Secondly, there's a lot of new editors that aren't familiar with Knowledge (XXG) yet, esp. those that haven't registered, and just because it's "unsighlty" does not justify removing it. -- 1292:. I myself never saw this template for some time after I got here and only know one article where it occurs, so it plainly did not help me as a newcomer. Logically, it should either be on all talk pages or none, so if it continues to exist as a template it should be reserved for pages where there is a real need to make the point about proper talk procedure. 4131:

is in use on a ridiculous number of pages, all of which will have to be changed because deleting it will erase the presetting of parameters contained within it. Please take all of these points seriously as I think it would be a very bad move to delete this template, and furthermore the vote came from

4607:

this template is being used on hundereds of pages. Don't create senseless work for people. Unless the nominator wants to modify every sigle one. Seriosly people should acutaly realize what they're voting on before they vote. If the people who voted delete go through and chage the 150+ pages this

4549:

Agree with Alfa. Just because people who are not working as much on Stargate Topics as some others do don't know how to use them as they were intented that does not make the template unnecessary. There is a bunch of knowledgeable people working on the Stargate Wikiproject and I think they know what

4458:

is ever seen is in a plot section. Plot sections can often not contain spoilers if designed that way. In the Anubis article for instance, there is a large amount of plot that doesnt include a spoiler template. When it does start to spoil, however, it's no good just to say "spoilers now" because

317:

It wasn't obvious to me from skimming the above (on careful reading it is) that Netoholic is referring to Simple English Knowledge (XXG) for the above example, where MediaWiki:Talkpagetext apparently is currently active. It isn't currently active on English Knowledge (XXG), nor any others I'm

347:

until such a time as the MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is active on English Knowledge (XXG) - this being precisely the template's purpose. As was stated in previous TfD's, if the need for the template is obviated by software changes, it will soon lose support. (NB - I'm assuming that merely editing

4192:

allows you to write {{sgspoiler|1}} to warn of a spoiler for Season 1. If you had to do this with the widely applicably spoiler-season metatemplate, then you'd have to write: {{spoiler-season|Stargate SG-1|1|image=StargateGlyph01.png|pixelwidth=16|episodelist=List of Stargate SG-1

4107:. It has a large number of specific parameters that would be cumbersome to use on individual pages. It was designed that sub-templates be used to control set parameters and vary only those appropriate. If there isn't a problem with subject-specific templates like 4431:

is redundant with a section that is called "Plot". These templates here can be replaced by subsections titled "Season 1", which tell people to expect spoilers for precisely these seasons without having to put ugly boxes into the text of an encyclopedia article.

994:

per ikiroid - at least until the MediaWiki talk page text is implemented on the en.wikipedia. I've placed this template on several talk pages where it was getting very hard to follow discussion due to no one (or very few people) signing their comments properly.

2737:? (and the cities' talk pages if needed). That way we don't delete a template used in a large number of articles possibly going against the consensus on those pages. Seems to me the contributors to the relevant pages should have a say first... Just a thought... 4397:

which have exemplary exhibitions of how this template is meant to be used. It's not enough to just say "Spoiler here" in general as, on a TV show, you may have only watched up to Season 5, say. These templates tell you how far into a "Plot" section you can

4238:

1130:

is actually operational, but right now that is a proposal. I do not think that this is a matter for TfD to decide, in fact, this should only go if it's accepted, which it has yet to be. It is not obsolete until it is obsolete, and it is not right now.

2312:

This is a better name than cite journal, I think, because the thing the template creates is a reference, not a citation. I'm not sure how the mojo works, but can the histories be merged and have cite journal be a redirect back to Journal reference?

1614:

should remain a seperate template. There are people like me who drink both coke and pepsi, proudly posting both templates on their userpage, and then there are people who are ardent supporters of one over another. Each group should get their own

1393:

option is promising but I feel it needs to be made a bit more prominent and noticeable before it can duplicate this functionality. I, myself, learned how to sign comments from this template and, I suspect, many others users have, as well. —

5399:. A borderline numeric consensus, but bear in mind this was 'deleted' once before and has failed here to find even a minmal level of support in a second chance debate. The nomination from the original debate is still quite compelling here. - 1279:

I think the extra added information and pointers are useful to incoming newbies. I suspect it may be *more* useful to keep it as a template, as it's mostly likely to be necessary on Lightning Rod articles, as opposed to the general case.

3651:

I disgaree with your assessment. I would not have nominted this template if the Bush opposition templates were allowed to remain. Allowing this supportive template and not the opposition amounts to Knowledge (XXG) endorsement of Bush.

5019:. He did not place a TFD tag on either the template talk page or the template itself (a bad idea in this case, but a note on the talk page would, to me, be mandatory so people who have it watchlisted would be aware of this TFD debate). 5274:

This sort of templated text is deprecated. If it were so marvellously phrased that the editors of various articles should be discouraged from adapting and improving it, that would be one thing; but it isn't as wonderful as all that.

4459:

people whove seen season 1-3 but not 4 will be okay to read on until it says "S4 spoilers now". Also, it is rarely a viable option just to split every plot section into 10 different subsections (as SG-1 has 10 seasons and growing).--

5343: 232:

An argument that it should be kept because it has been put forward for deletion before is not a valid reason for why the template is kept. TFD is not a straightforward vote - do you have a reason for wishing to keep the template?

4617:

This is a discussion about the merits of the template, not about the amount of work it would be to change its usage. Furthermore, it wouldn't be hard to get a bot and do the work of changing the first mention of the template to

651:. I feel it is a very important template. I often find myself pointing out to newcomers that they should sign their comments, but on adding this template to the top of the page more newcomers will actually sign their comments. 5585:. There are too many similar templates. This makes it harder to achieve a common look and feel. It also makes it more difficult for users to select the 'correct' template. Drop what we don't need so it is less confusing. 4665:. spoiler-season is far too vague a template to do the job (and was designed that way, remember). TV Show Seasons are an idea to get your head around if you dont follow any series, but if you do then you see the use. You 2207:

tags, so this nomination might be on ice for a while. It's also rather unclear to what name it should go, but since virtually all calls now use citejournal, craeting thousands of redirects does seem rather pointless.

4952:

Just to second the unused claim. The whatlinkshere is both accurate and orphaned, save for other templates that are headed for deletion. The usages in userspace are immaterial to the orphaning and deleting process.

1406:. It functions as a helpful reminder and a link to relevant policies, which is a lot more user-friendly than telling newcomers to come back when they have finished reading through every single policy and help-page. 2206:, which, yes, is GFDL compliant, on the assumption that the adding of TfD tags doesn't result in new copyright for the tagger. However, at present, WLH is recovering in regards to templates used within <ref: --> 1308:, that seems to be just as controversal (and more universally so) than this template. However, if that is detangled then I would advocate switching to it so as to have only one "helpful" notice system in place. 216: 4562:

Agree with Alfakim. The template Sgspoiler is useful, notifying the user the info below is spoiler info for a certain season. I see no reason to delete this. It is useful, and unique to its subject.

220: 3677:

Whether or not a user has the box on his/page is not a Wikimedia endorsement. Allowing the pro-Bush template and disallowing the anti-Bush template can certainly be seen as a political endorsement. --

4117:, then there shouldn't be a problem with this one. Please also remember that meta-templating on only 2 levels cannot cause any problems, and that there is no real reason to delete a template if it is 2556:

If what links here is broken, then journal reference will not be deleted. Please post articles that you find still using journal reference on my talk page. I will convert them to cite journal. --

4500:

template because it is worse and more distracting, as it contains images. If spoiler warnings have a place at all in an encyclopedia, they should be as unobtrusive and invisible as possible.

2604:. There should be just one journal reference template; if this one is deprecated and orphaned then it should be deleted. Whoever's working on these templates should also do the same with 3063:. This template does not express an editor PoV, but rather appears to be designed to be humourous. I can see no value to the project from this template, so recommend subst'ing per Doc. -- 42: 37: 1660: 5418: 1466:. The information it gives is already stated at the bottom of the editing screen. Further, who really listens to the advice on wikiette? Honestly, delete the damn waste of space... 905:

this template. It's inconsistently used an just plain unsightly for those who are familiar with Knowledge (XXG). Keep this kind of introductory information to the welcome message.

4925:. Please be careful in nominating; we can't even trust What links here. I recommend keeping them all until it's fixed and then going through and swapping them out with Qif. -- 2756:

Done. It worries me if people add these template to geography article for their pet purpose. I can't see why this renders a template. The cities have nothing in common, IMO. /

4195:

Let me also remind you guys that there are plenty of templates designed entirely as metatemplates, or used extensively as metatemplates to do more specific jobs, for instance

3005:

Can we work out a sensible compromise here? Whilst this may be inoffensive in intent, it will annoy many. A grand total of nine users are including this right now. How about

5573:, as it is not clear what a/the "main article" is. Therefore use {background} for child to parent link and {details} for parent to child link. Don't use {main} for both.- 4262:

Stub templates have images, and, indeed, there has been no problem with making thousands of stub-templates for individual use inside certain subject areas. If you allow

3419:

In reality I do not see anything wrong with this, just a but POV. But I have seen POV humourous userboxes that are less offfensive than this one and have been deleted.

819:. Some articles are magnets for new users, and having a little explanation at the top explaining what a talk page is and how to use it does not seem to hurt anything. -- 2566: 2542: 1176:. It's amazingly useful for educating new users, particularly those who arrive at the talk page for the first time after an article is protected from edit warring. · 1433:-- By all means we need to keep it. It isn't failing its job and changing it to something else would remove it in all the old articles. I think it's fine, keep it. 615:

until such time as a MediaWiki function can fulfill its purpose. I believe this template to be very helpful in advising newcomers of proper discussion etiquette.--

160:

is available to take over from this template. The message is live and needs only text to be added to it. You can see it in action on the simple english wiktionary

3988:, which it instead uses as a meta-template. The point of such templates is to be widely applicable, not for one to be created for each, in this case, TV show. — 2841:

from all the articles, at least. Imagine if we had a massive template for every international event held in a city. The city article would become ridiculous...

2069:

Delete all. I am all for fun, but wikipedia is wikipedia. No need to bog it down with jokes, etc. Even one k of bandwidth spent on this is a waste of donor $ .

1255:

Makes wikipedia more user friendly, provides valuable information and is unobtrusive to the actual article. I would prefer if it was on every single talk page.

3852: 1929: 4337:

Can you please give a REASON! I can't believe this is up for deletion. See my above: there are clear cases for it not to be deleted! This template is

3150:. Utterly idiotic and unencyclopaedic. Only very mildly offensive, which is why I don't say strong delete. If absolutely necessary, subst and delete. 1421:-- In general, I've found talk pages with the header are much more better organized than those without. It's nice to have the rules right there. -- 352:

wouldn't be enough, on the basis that if it were, someone would have done it already; and I don't want to experiment. Can anyone confirm or deny?)

2984:

A speedy deletion tag was removed from this template but it was never nominated for deletion here. So I'm doing it. Pointless template, breaches

21: 3904:

5-5 is hardly a consensus or a mandate to delete. also, I thought TfD was allowed 7 days, this was nominated on the 16th, thats 24hrs at most...

3851:

Speedy Deletion should never be used to ignore a TFD. If this deletion is allowed to stand then all of your opinion will count for nothing. See

3122:

I'm just using it for fun, I see nothing wrong with it. I make no real claim to being the Pope. ;) (That was me, forgot to sign it at first.)

2488:, but that might lead to confusion for those who have been used to using the old-style parameters; we could replace the current content with a 2806:: Seems rather unnecessary - most of these cities have rather more prominent things in their histories than that they have hosted the ESC. -- 2457:: we already have a bunch of cite xxx templates and there was once some consensus to move in that direction on these templates. See also the 3528:

The result of the debate was interesting. But this template is gone now, and there will be no more George W. Bush templates of any form. --

3094:, I have no problem with users displaying this on their userpages but I don't think we need something in the Template namespace for this. 4897:

Unused meta-templates. Even proponents of ugly meta-templates would say that these have been replaced with the vastly (*cough*) superior

3269: 2693: 17: 4071: 2701: 1908: 1690: 1507:. Useful and helped me when I started. However, I agree it does look a bit tired and could do with some cosmetic improvement. --- 1389:

I think the fact that it's used on over 1500 talk pages, in itself, speaks volumes for the fact that people think it's useful. The

1150: 580:. I can see asking for policy not to put it on every single talk page... but, for big high traffic pages it's definitely an asset. 1362: 2684: 2677: 5036: 3272: 604: 2885:. Could be useful as historical information on how many cities have hosted the ESC, has a city hosted more than one ESC, etc. - 2111: 1801: 882: 4480:

I am not being ridiculous, I just find "Plot. Warning! Plot and/or ending details follow" silly. Actually, I personally think

3450: 2386:) when moving that to lower case params only (currently web reference is needlessly complex due to the fact that it provides 1934: 5460:- Per nom. I don't entirely trust that it is currently unused (What Links Here? problems), but it is much better covered by 4969:. Maybe we should drop the various users a line to let them know that their test pages are about to be affected? HTH HAND — 3403: 2094: 450: 246: 143: 130:

This template is pointless. The word "Talk" is in big letters at the top of every talk page, and is in the title as well.

2608:. Finally, I don't see why a full-fledged deletion is necessary...simply replace the orphan template with a redirect. — 3772: 3469: 2734: 2140: 1453: 5604: 5422: 5387: 5368: 5313: 5294: 5097: 5078: 4762: 4743: 3923: 3894: 3520: 3501: 2923: 2904: 2653: 2634: 2539:}} template. But removing this template will break all the articles that use the template, which would be quite wrong. 2194: 2175: 1545: 1526: 69: 5005:

was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use

3559: 2458: 1305: 941:

Ugly and redundant...do we really want to start adding ugly headers repeating basic information on every talk page? –

3454: 5589: 5577: 5563: 5543: 5495: 5479: 5452: 5439: 5405: 5354: 5331: 5279: 5266: 5240: 5222: 5202: 5190: 5169: 5135: 5113: 5063: 5051: 5039: 4989: 4977: 4959: 4947: 4931: 4908: 4780: 4728: 4701: 4685: 4635: 4612: 4592: 4580: 4567: 4554: 4541: 4527: 4507: 4475: 4439: 4416: 4384: 4357: 4332: 4298: 4257: 4225: 4148: 4075: 4054: 4036: 4016: 4003: 3939: 3908: 3879: 3864: 3845: 3828: 3816: 3800: 3786: 3777: 3740: 3721: 3712: 3703: 3681: 3672: 3656: 3646: 3630: 3614: 3605: 3586: 3537: 3486: 3474: 3437: 3411: 3379: 3358: 3346: 3324: 3306: 3294: 3277: 3242: 3219: 3199: 3185: 3168: 3156: 3142: 3126: 3114: 3102: 3086: 3068: 3055: 3041: 3017: 2999: 2939: 2889: 2857: 2845: 2833: 2815: 2798: 2786: 2764: 2747: 2724: 2671: 2619: 2605: 2590: 2573: 2560: 2551: 2527: 2510: 2469: 2449: 2431: 2394: 2337: 2317: 2304: 2285: 2259: 2244: 2234: 2214: 2160: 2144: 2114: 2098: 2073: 2061: 2045: 2033: 2017: 2001: 1987: 1967: 1952: 1940: 1899: 1873: 1858: 1846: 1830: 1806: 1775: 1764: 1751: 1737: 1714: 1694: 1672: 1648: 1636: 1624: 1594: 1569: 1511: 1497: 1470: 1458: 1437: 1425: 1412: 1398: 1379: 1351: 1312: 1296: 1284: 1271: 1259: 1245: 1228: 1216: 1200: 1188: 1168: 1156: 1118: 1097: 1085: 1068: 1056: 1040: 1028: 1016: 1004: 986: 969: 957: 945: 933: 921: 909: 893: 853: 841: 823: 811: 800: 777: 757: 745: 729: 684: 672: 660: 643: 623: 607: 587: 572: 548: 523: 509: 491: 476: 467: 454: 427: 403: 390: 372: 356: 339: 322: 312: 285: 267: 250: 227: 200: 179: 168: 147: 85: 4838: 3154: 1979: 1918: 1048: 4872: 1611: 1587: 3550: 3543: 2961: 1948:

The admin nutjobs are just going to end up with many of the active Knowledge (XXG) users abandoning the project.

506: 446: 242: 139: 5603: