Knowledge:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 9

2732:(LOGRTAC), and I think I recall seeing three templates at LOGRTAC simultaneously. Since the article opponents are going to add either lines or templates to dispute these issues anyway, I agree with Amarkov that filling up the screen with dispute templates is a bad idea. Template editing may not be quite as easy, but for sure it won't halt. LOGRTAC has just gone through it's 5th AfD - no consensus defaulting to keep with about 52% support. It's time to acknowledge that dispute template(s) at LOGRTAC are a semipermanent feature of the article, and that they need to be prettyfied, since the article is being published elsewhere in this form. (Those interested can read a description of the semipermanent LOGRTAC dispute issues at 631:), with some expansion, would be far more appropriate to the articles it covers. A casual observer of Hillsong may not need a link to every single album they've ever produced (nearly 70% of the template's bulk) - a direction to an appropriate list with more details and appropriate copyright information about each release, as has been done with Songs, would be an improvement. With the existing one, you might not even *find* the article about the church, which is the only really notable thing linked from it. 1242:. This can be confusing to people who have an article using such a template on their watchlist, since the template is used in a section heading. Thus a section named "In the Pokemon video games" is reduced to {{PokeVideoGames}} in the edit summary if this template is used. (ec) Further, Ultimate, these are in SECTION HEADINGS. Removing them isn't going to affect the information of the article. - 1540:, and others. why not merely write out the guidlenine and hope people follow it? because that just simply doesn't work. and i don't believe a majority of the people here !voting even read the related discussions. there is precendent for this, but people are just ignoring it. and you say that the header names are stanrdized? take a look at 1468:}}, the reasonings there are the same, many people have often said that it and similar templates should be subst'd, but the push has repeatedly been shot down. As for vandalism, please review the discussions associated with these templates i noted above, they address the issues you may have quite thoroughly. - 1388:. There appears to be consesnus for this change, however I haven't been pushing these templates recently because of a planned merger that would make the work implenting them be wasted. I'd also like to ask that people who voiced their opinions rethink their positions after reviewing this information. - 1142:

I'm not sure what you mean by "you can't click the edit summary see what effect it had on the article..." do you mean that the way they were tagged for this TFD caused a problem, or the way they were being implemented? If it has to do with the way they were implented, i'm not sure what problems you

3538:

contains extremely detailed information on a very specific subject, and this is outside the scope of Knowledge. Knowledge is a suitable starting point for one's research on a Forgotten Realms related topic, and thus should contain a link to further reading on any given topic. That a link to further

3482:

non-notable, from an Encyclopedia point of view - if pepople want to find obscure stuff, go to the specialists, ie. us. As for the banner/template, I can see how it could be percieved as spam by the WP community, and I think we'd be better off if it was just deleted. I know it wasn't your intention

1379:

and make the changes and see if anyone really had a problem with them. You can review the histories for the pages themselves, but I believe there were only two times anyone changed them back/subst'd them and worries of confusing editors were obviously overplayed as the many edits that occured after

1070:

tags, which prevents them from being transcluded. This means that the editors who regularly use the templates will not be informed, and is probably bad practice, making it seem like you're trying to sneak something by, like nominating an article for afd without tagging it. If it's a layout issue,

1922:

ty for at least reading some of the pages i posted for perusal. these templates are intended to encourage the policies of MOS (like no links in headers). by templating the headers we can also insure that sectional links remain accurate. this concept of taking the already practiced transclusion of

1552:

easily follow the same naming conventions, but they don't - non-standarization leaves the articles of any topic looking like a disheveled mess as you move from one to the other. an encyclopedia should allow me to find the information quickly and easily, not have to guess at header names, and hope

1931:

that the piped link will always point to the right section, no matter how often the header gets renamed, and i did it without even having to look at the article to make sure i lablled it right, this obviously can't work for everything, but in cases like these, where large numbers of articles are

1463:

There's actually a future-proof rationale to this, and that's for making it easier to update the articles should the style guides ever change, that's why transclusion is opted for over substitution. It also discourages people from making inappropraite changes to section headers. Take a look at

1129:

Not only that, also if someone make changes to the page, you can't click the edit summary see what effect it had on the article, you have to find the section some other way. Also note to the closing administrator: Subst all of them. This is pointless. This is as pointless as adding template:

3433:

I am the creator of the template and also the creator of the Wikiproject Forgotten Realms. Despite a considerable amount of work from me, I did not see much help from others (for the exception of one person who subsequently dropped). Meanwhile, a third-party project on Wikia gathered many

2575:

can also be seen as encouraging excessive tagging. I think the way tags are added is pretty intuitive, similar to infoboxes, which are widely used. We can always add a comment along with each transclusion: <!-- Please see Template:Articleissues for how to use this template. --:

1629:

wait, you're saying to delete a template because the only people who will use it are those who know about it? and at any rate, each template has a link to the style guidline it's based on. so if the headers were used on every page, there's no way someone couldn't know about it.

2971:, it would seem that a lot of micronation articles either aren't using it or have subst'd it. That said, I would caution against using that infobox in articles on fraudulent and very frivolous entities, as I think it was the infobox which was one of the worst problems in the 1562:) but we let someone come along and change them into these weird names... or people create headers that outright violate the MOS by doing things like having links in them. If there were a set of related animal species header templates, it would help improve this situation. - 1557:

think it would be at. Sure, Cat will have different sections than Dog, but why are they calling one section Anatomy and Morphology, and it's related section is simply Physical Characteristics? Indeed, Physical Characterisitcs is the norm for animal species (take a look at

2533:

into one central template. The disadvantage is that this makes it more difficult for editors to add or remove boxes, where easiness of use is such a strong point of Knowledge. Also, this template encourages just adding another tagline to the template, as for instance

2610:

and it is an excellent template to use on articles that have multiple issues, and better than have three or four stacked templates a top of page. Removing a particular issue is as easy as removing a the appropriate line from the template text. Regarding the case of

1838:

It's not my reason for wanting to get rid of it. I want to get rid of the templates because they are unnecessary and encourage overly strict style guidelines. The comment was in response to something I interpreted as "they may be useless, but why delete them?"

643:

Totally agreed with Orderinchaos on this one, it's another useless template with excessive linking. Convert the information to a category or list, then blow this template away. The casual observer would not give a stuff about every article they have released.

3440:. And what I see now is two concurrent project working without much dialog, a consequently a lot of redundancy and the necessity to check two sources for anyone interested in the Realms. Do you like to read the same information twice just to find the 1212:

Keep - I say we keep them. Deleted them would delete alot of useful information. I know alot of people who log on to some of these pokemon articles because its a way to gather information which if I am not mistaken was the purpose of an encyclopedia.

3516:. Cross-wiki redundancy is not such a bad thing: You can watch these articles, see the changes, and update accordingly at Wikia. Use both to improve the other for concise summaries (Knowledge) and details (Wikia). Easier said than done, of course. – 1617:. Unnecessary - the only purpose of these templates is to create a style for the headers, but the only people who would use this template would know about the style, and those who don't know about the style wouldn't know about the template. - 2640:

this template is useful to consolidating multiple guideline breaches without the need to "stack" multiple templates. It also focuses editors attention on what specifically needs to be addressed before the template might be removed.

1823:

Amarkov, if people want to vandalize all the pages, they'll do it with Pokenum, or the infobox... and if they do it with these headers, we can sproct them as well. vandalism is NEVER an excuse for getting rid of something.

1951:, and do it quickly so we can no longer have the "‹The template that displays this section title has been proposed for deletion.›" cluttering the articles that use these templates. I suggest doing so now per 3486:

In my eyes I'm happy with having the link from Knowledge's Forgotten Realms page, and nowhere else. For anyone else looking for FR wiki, we can just hope we get some favorable rankings from Google :P From

1453:

them with {{subst:Templatefoo}}. Subst'ing them puts the text in, and leaves the template out. Besides, vandalism on a template is harder to fix in an article; a subst'ed template lacks these problems.

3567:

this isn't what templates are for. Unencyclopedic advertising. Having an external link, or even a interwiki box is one thing, but we shouldn't be discouraging readers from editing, or promoting editing

1491:

serves a useful purpose by linking to a more in-depth article, whereas these pokéheaders do not, they are merely placeholders for the header text. The existence of these headers is in contrast to a

2728:. Radiant is correct that Template:Articleissues is intended to prettify articles. Maybe the need for it is not so exceptional and perhaps is a growing category. This template is attached to 2588:

is to say the same thing with less vertical space, so the reader can acknowledge the multiple lines in the box, then more quickly get to reading and hopefully improving the article. –

1718:

but make sure that any information is not lost if it's deleted (I keep forgetting if deleting templates removes all the information from the articles, or if the information stays)--

3387: 2615:, if all the issues listed are standing, I see no problem with it. It will encourage editors to address the issues raised and remove the template when done fixing. If it just 1909:

Sorry but this template serves only the purpose of keeping a consistent title heading (from what I've read on the template's talk page) and surely this is already covered by

3488: 1167:

species of Pokemon? Go to an article on any species, even the one on Arceus, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Just ckecking to see if you all noticed...-Anonymous

2571:

seems to be an exceptional case. The template documentation advises not adding redundant taglines, and not using the generic "cleanup" in conjunction with other ones.

42: 526:

Very bizarre. I just got reverted by an editor who said it's best to have them seperate, and I recommended to him he get over he pronto. I then noticed that it was

37: 1331:, a related template that was not nominated and which explains the use of these templates. There is also a summary of the lengthy discussion at the project, found 2687: 3470:

At this point, I think the question of having all content ported to both FR Wiki and WP is just moot. The projects are of totally different scopes. Our wiki is

281:

This template is unused, and the subpages have been merged into the main article page. Additionally, the template is misnamed, using a "0" in place of an "O" —

3436:

Now, I'm not feeling jealous for anything: I did my best, I'm happy with it, few people followed, no problem. What I'm concerned about is not me but my goal:

1510:

the main template merely writes some words in italics and then puts the parameter given into a wikilink. all of these delete arguments could be used to subst

2841: 3539:

reading at the Forgotten Realms Wiki should be included in Knowledge articles surely cannot be under dispute, so this surely must be a discussion as to the

3383: 2375: 2324: 2126: 3506:

for discouraging readers from editing the article (if the article is too specific, then propose it for deletion). Otherwise, the template is redundant to

2674:

Reduces use of verticle space, per Jossi. Ideally, it be better to fix the issues that add the template, but ultimately makes life easier for readers. --

1182: 1923:

mostly static templates can save so much time just within this topic alone. For example, if i wanted to create a piped link to the Anime section in

1927:

i can just write it as ]. Standardization with the templates not only makes our encyclopedia look more professional, but also saves us time. I now

1408: 1216: 1170: 3130:. This template is totally irrelevant. There is no need to tag an article to show it's been wikified - that would apply to every article in WP!. 1251:

As a sidenote: Thanks for the heads up. Was under the impression that this would empty out the articles as I saw another wiki site do. Thanks.

3269:

I mistakenly created two redundant templates, Round16-2Legs and Round16-2legs. Therefore, the Round16-2Legs can be deleted without problem. —

1774:

It's not as easy to vandalize 493 articles at once, plus people don't think that all articles in a series must have exactly the same format. -

2936: 2861: 1736:

keep or sub. I don't see how deleting them would make the articles better. As-is this discussion notice makes the articles just plain ugly.--

21: 1339:

and decided to implement the concept in a few non-obscure, but also non-high profile articles and gauge the reactions. I did this to all

3553:

template instead, which will appear towards the bottom of the article, and conforms to the general style of other such interwiki boxes.

2984:

Point well taken. Common practice seems to be to use the micronation infobox as a guideline and modify as needed for particular cases.

2729: 1937: 1829: 1635: 1605: 1567: 1473: 1440: 1393: 1228: 1152: 1431:

one would think that people could follow a style guide for 493 articles, but that's simply not the case. Why not take a look at some

3040:

Can some user with super-user skills retrieve this template which was deleted and put it directly in the sealand article. thanks. -

3000:. Having everything that is in the template on top of the sealand page is very cluttered and might be confusing for new editors. -- 2975:

article before it got refactored. It gave it something of an air of credibility which the reliable sources in no way supported. --

2416:

These categories have now been replaced by some more intuitive categories and are now blank. Most likely speedy delete necessary.

2260: 2062: 17: 2368: 3457: 1081:. Plus, the linebreak you added between the tfd tag and the content broke the layout on every page using the templates anyway! 2584:

to be updating the dates on these, so the instructions don't need to emphasize dates, in order to make it simpler to use. The

1332: 690:, with Orderinchaos too. Massive in size, massive in ugliness. Split it down into subcategories, if absolutely necessasry. 2702: 1420: 2844:. I recommend subst'ing into that article, and deleting (if GFDL allows) or replacing with a permanent redirect (if not). — 2523:

While well-intended, I believe this is not such a good idea. The intent is to prettify articles by consolidating boxes like

256: 108: 3412: 3347: 2961:

Agree in principle, although I think subst'ing the current Sealand table would be just fine. I'm interested to be told of

2733: 1327:

Obviously, as i'm the creator of these templates. I'd like to invite everyone who voted to read through the talk page at

2965: 2946: 1667: 1380:

these changes can testify. I'd like to ask that anyone coming deciding to vote on this please review the explanation at

1113:

because these templates are used in section headers, so they're currently making articles confusing and hard to read. –

2932:

per nom - only used in one article and not likely to ever be used in any others. But (to respond to Radiant) wouldn't

508:

I just checked and the less comprehensive template is the one linked to on all the pages! I suggest this be reverted.

264: 247: 208: 116: 99: 3372:

I am nominating this template for deletion because it appears to be spam. Normally I would say it would qualify for

3338: 3297: 1600:

and what happens if style guidlines change again? there are still articles with the two-years old Biology sections. -

1163:

Do any of you realize that deleting those templates will also delete the 'sub-categories' that are on the profile of

3355: 1495:

of Knowledge articles where header names are more or less standardized without requiring templates to do the job.

1299:- it's pointless to transclude basic text: templates were designed to hide more complex code like divs and tables. 1178: 60: 3547: 3510: 3483:

Latapie, but by making the banner in "our name" it has made it look like we are spamming/advertising on Knowledge.

3386:

which also comments on its Spam content, yet the template still is here and used on at least 8 articles currently

1621: 1011: 909: 807: 3599: 3313: 3287: 3244: 3205: 3179: 3066: 3031: 2815: 2781: 2755: 2500: 2474: 2391: 2358: 2184: 2160: 1998: 1974: 734: 710: 372: 346: 224: 198: 76: 3598: