Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 21

2456:" is "Ding". It can be overused - if the article text itself explicates the name syntax, the template (which is largely intended for B-class articles and lower) should be removed from the article. That does not make the template useless, it just means it needs better documentation. Given that these templates in most cases had no documentation at all about 2 weeks ago, nor a category, nor any consistency, I think a TfD is kind of jumping the gun a bit. By the reasoning that it "clutters the space at the top of the page" we might as well also remove disambiguation templates and all of the (article-wide, non-section) cleanup tags, too. — 4412:: To the extent that this template poorly attempted to serve the purpose of saying "this Knowledge (XXG) article has had a 'WikiWorld' cartoon made about it", I'll probably address that tomorrow by making a proper template for that purpose. This concern (to the extent it might arise at all; I think there are only 20 or so such cartoons in the first place) has nothing to do with whether to keep a pointless and mal-used WPP template (in this case, it indicated very incorrectly that the articles to which it may be, and was recently, attached fall under the planning, review and assessment purview of the WikiProject in question, which is 2251:: Would it be feasible to merge it with the old templates? i.e: Would it be possible for this template to temporarily support some of the old parameters (however, deprecate the old parameters and remove them from this template as and when they are no longer used) and redirect the old templates to this one? IMHO this has two effects - 1) it keeps a consistent look and feel throughout articles - more professional? 2)It hopefully helps avoid a raft of further templates being created or some articles "going it alone" because of the lack of consistency between articles 2690:: I guess I see making utterly frivolous "cuz I don't like it" deletion nominations to be essentially a bad faith action. I could possibly be dissuaded from that view, but given the increased load in XfD due to such nonsense, I'd rather promote it... Being mistaken about the valid reasons for deleting and article, etc., is one thing, but providing no basis at all is simply a waste of everyone's time. But perhaps I'm just cranky about this peeve. I guess this isn't the place to really get into that, though. — 2805:. I fail to see what this template was doing on this page, but people keep reinserting it. I have never heard anyone referring to Mao Zedong as "Zedong" or Chiang Kai-shek as "Kai-shek". If an editor find that a person is erroneously referred to by his or her given name, this can be dealt with in the first paragraph of the article. We can capitalize the surname, to make clear what is what. Are we supposed to have templates for every possible misunderstanding?-- 2942:" but given this is not where the consensus is headed, I would like to echo SMcCandlish's sentiment that this template can be easily overused. The template serves to clarify for readers cases where it is not immediately obvious whether the surname constitutes the first, second, or third name given. It should not serve as a link to surname articles or be in any way redundant with the article text. It should not be given for persons using western names e.g. " 3100:: As to others: exactly; I don't think anyone else here is being crappy. I think in my case I introduced or reinforced the idea that this should be speedied because the delete nomination wasn't explained in policy-cognizable terms, ergo was trivial, ergo was bad faith, which isn't a chain of reasoning with any support outside the way I felt about it at the time, so I retract it. It wasn't intended as a below-the-belt shot, but had that effect. — 1638:: am I the only one who finds it funny that Wikipedians assume that autobiographies are always written in the 3rd person? Something that I now do all the time :) Unlike fair use, deletion criteria should only be about an article's content in itself (understanding that there may be other versions in the history, of course). Indicating that something is an autobiography might give people the wrong idea about notability. This template is not needed. 2483:- Actually many of the templates you refer to were created by yourself quite recently, and I wasn't even aware of these templates until now. It is only tautological to quote these templates as proof of the necessity of this template. I have been annoyed by the Chinese surname template for quite a while and I think it is time to get rid of it, and if this means that the other go as well, I am fine with that. 3621:: It strikes me as extremely likely that what you're labelling a redundancy was intentional, for some particular case. I would a) look at the articles it is used in (and if they can be handled by another template in this class, change them over), and/or b) contact the creator(s) of the template, ask them what it is for, and ask them to either merge it with another or document it properly. — 2535:

that it already made such matters clear). c) Whether you were aware of the templates until now isn't of any consequence to this TfD. d) I don't follow your "patronizing" point; this is just another form of disambig. in the encyclopledia, like any other. Your archly constructed "counterexample" is not actually comparable to the real templates in question, and essentially forms a

3289:. This template was not updated very often and had fields that would not hide their displays. For example, motto would be displayed on many pages when there wasn't any motto and area code would show up as {{{Area Code}}} on some pages. The template seemed to complex to use for some editors as well. All pages using this template, which wasn't many, have been standardized to 2878:(Unlikely to happen, as to that last; busy enough without the mop.) I apologize; in retrospect after a good dinner and some time to mull it over, in which I've tried hard to wear your shoes, I can see where you are coming from, despite my disclaimer that it's nothing personal and just procedural, and it reminded me of something similar that happened to 2828:. I don't think you are a bad person or that you intent is malicious. As explained above I simply believe that the concept of good faith can no longer blanket-include plainly meritless actions that waste other editors' time, like filing "I don't know of this or don't find it personally interesting/useful" XfDs that do not cite policies/guidelines/ 2966:- This proposal for deletion is entirely unhelpful and uninformed. The template assists readers in instantly determining, in WP articles about Chinese individuals, which is the given and family names. This is not immediately apparent to many Wikipedians unfamiliar with the Chinese language or Chinese naming conventions. 4022:

that spawned it (WPP serves a valid purpose, but template does not); sole purpose of template was for noting the addition of original cartoons to WP articles which were deemed nonencyclopedic and deleted from articlespace. Serves no purpose, and was consistently abused by putting it on article pages

2760:

Wufei Xing (not to mention radically different transliterations, like "Woo", "Fe", "Ching", etc., etc., etc.), all in extant publications, sports shows, records listings, etc.. Even someone slightly familiar with the subject of the article coming to look for more information is highly unlikely to be

2882:

on Wiktionary, so I can empathize as well as sympathize. I've been trying to stretch the definition of "bad faith" to encompass things that are not actively malevolent, and, well, it's just not working. The three or four times I've tried this, the resistance has been pretty stiff, so I'm giving up

873:

until the discussion is complete. There's no reason to have these in template space while the discussion is on-going, and once its over, they can be deleted or moved as appropriate. Yes, it's not quite as easy to type "{{User:HisSpaceResearch/Current2}}", as it is to type "{{Current2}}, but that's

3050:

actually means, I find the implication of this term offensive in this discussion. What you are implying is basically that my nomination is a form of vandalism or that I am a banned user. You might as well report me to an admin, instead of wasting your time writing contributions in a debate you have

2539:

argument. e) I have no idea what you mean by this template causing the creation of nonencyclopedic articles. Examples please? Actually I don't know what you mean by this template duplicating disambiguation links, either. f) There is nothing tautological about pointing out the existence of related

1035:

7 out of 9 current links are clearly sub-topics of Ellen White (family being so close that sub-topics fits IMO). I disagree with your concept of notability, but this wouldn't be the first time I have come up on the keep side of a notability related discussion on wikipedia. I do not quite agree with

2488:

There are many other ways of clarfying the usages of Chinese surnames and it is often clear from the context what is what. In the article you quote, Ding Junhui is referred to by his surname Ding and I do not think it would occur to anyone that Ding is the given name. The assumption that "Western"

1075:

about religion should be independent of the facts here. I have not encountered a standard for how many articles must be related to a topic before it becomes worthy of a template but having 7 directly related articles, plus the two church pages, and two clear red links to both her son and her other

542:

that are rejected, but these aren't proposals. These are forked out templates that are now being added without having been discussed anywhere. That's a bad idea. By long-standing precedent, if you don't like a template, edit it rather than fork it - and if you have a large-impact proposal, make it

2534:

already knew about the radical difference between Chinese and Vietnamese addressing traditions, would understand why one article used the surname and the other did not or (more to the point) even understand which parts the surnames were (unless as I already noted the article were developed enough

2654:. A page can only be speedy-kept if the nominator has withdrawn and nobody else wants it deleted, the nomination was in bad faith, the nominator is banned, or the nominated page is a policy or guideline. None of these seem to have happened here, so people should be !voting 'keep' (or possibly ' 1974:

Sounds like a new improvement effort has been mistaken for an orphan template. MRSC, it would help if you cited examples of "invitation put on the talk pages" of the other templates, so they can be examined to see if how they affect the situation, how old they are, etc., and other supporting

2168:

If dealing with Infobox City is on the cards, then, given what you say about it, one key move might be to change its name from "Infobox City" to "Infobox Place" to avoid the kinds of mismatches you mention and thus avoid confusion, but this is not relevant to this particular discussion here.

686:

a bad idea. So bad, they're probably speedy deletion candidates on more than one criteria. Nevertheless: I advise deletion because (a) these templates do not work with skins other than Monobook; (b) these templates reduce accessibility in Knowledge (XXG); (c) the purpose of our existing loud

2868:

Well, you accuse me of bad faith, and I'm not supposed to take it personally? Sorry, you may not have phrased you remarks as such, but your contributions very much read like personal attacks. Offense taken. Well, I guess you lost my vote when you run for admin next time.

2540:

templates, many of which predate my involvement, for the purpose of noting that because they are only newly consistentized (to make up a word) and only newly and in some cases just partially documented, that the problem is with their documentation, not their existence. —

993:

Most pages linked to in this template are not sub-topics of Ellen G. White, and thus its scope is not clearly defined, making its purpose unclear as a template (how vaguely related is vaguely related enough for inclusion?). For example, this template is transcluded on

2978:

Mostly for reasons above, i.e. that it informs users which name is the surname on articles where it is unclear. Of course, this should not be used in every article, and I support limits for its use. Finally, I do not believe that this was a bad-faith nom of any

3068:; these people are not sending a clandestine insult towards you (a secret code that can only be decrypted through a meticulous reading of guidelines). "Speedy keep" is more of an "if it can be speedy kept, then do so," whether through nominator withdraw, 135:

I created this template in lieu of the clunky wikitables I saw on various Pokémon city articles. Now that they all have been merged, no pages use this template, therefore it is no longer useful and should be deleted. As I am not the sole author,

4332:

2950:", explicitly in a table or less explicitly such as through a discussion of the person's relatives. I think this should be deleted because it is too obtrusive; the link can be made in a less jarring manner, as is done for Japanese people e.g. 2909:

What you personally have never heard of is of little consequence. Instead of adding text in Chinese biographical articles to explain surname/given name ordering, we can just use this template. It makes both editing and reading much easier.

3829:

Not in use. Seems like a hack to change the title of a wikipage. If it works it at least doesn't work on Safari, but if it does on other pages, it's still a bad idea to have such a hack available in wikipedia trough a simple template.

1071:, 1983, pp. 30, 31) That and the influence within Seventh-day Adventism should be enough for a template. Using derogatory language to say this is "religious cruft" doesn't exactly show a respect for knowledge in general. Your personal 1330:(Hasidic leaders). There is no other template which will serve this purpose. In particular it uses parameters peculiar to this group of bios. It is in the interests of Knowledge (XXG) to maintain a uniform style across these bios.-- 2099:- This is a very good and needed development. It is very new, and so cannot yet be expected to have widespread use. It also cannot be simply discarded in favour of the Infobox City, as most places in the UK are not cities (as 2017:

so its more consistent with other place infoboxes on WP. It is also far more flexible than the other templates. The reason it is not currently in use is because it is less than 24 hours old and because there was an invitation

2836:, on procedural grounds, as odious and pointless. Others may disagree with this. If so, my talk page is open, and so is my mind, so feel free to convince me otherwise. Maybe I'm just grumpy about such things and need some 860:

problems, which none of these have. However, I'm not sure how they could possibly qualify for speedy deletion. Also, I'm not aware of the current "proposal", and the closing admin may wish to take that into account

2520:- Furthermore a) the implication that my opinion doesn't count because I've been doing work in that part of the templatespace is silly. b) Your "referred to by surname" argument doesn't actually hold water; see 2451:

exists for a reason (actually several, when it comes to the entire category, but in this case one). It is not at all immediately clear to many, perhaps the majority of, Western readers that the family name in

3005:- I found your lengthy and aggressive responses quite uncalled for, given the fact that it was quite apparent early on that I had lost the nomination. But fair enough, apology accepted. Let bygones be bygones. 1036:

its transclusion on the Seventh-day Adventist theology page, however, the link on this template seems okay as she was a founding member who setup the major pieces of theology that the church uses currently.

2156:, and I've seen villages too. However, eliminating 3 separate templates with one (UK place) is a step in the right direction. We can always see about merging UK place with Infobox City at a later date. — 2489:

readers "don't understand" Chinese surname is a bit patronizing, just image a disclaimer on a template page saying something like "It may not be obvious to the average Chinese reader that..."

4886:

reason to conceivably save this is if it were "adopted", updated, and maintained by adopter regularly so that it remained current. There is no overaching reason to delete a template that is

2761:

completely certain of the correct name order, even if they already know something about Chinese names (assuming they even know the person is Chinese, and not Korean, Vietnamese, etc.) The

2756:

inconsistent. To make up an example, a world-champion pole vaulter named Xing Wu-fei may appear as Xing Wufei, Xing Wu Fei, Xing Fei, Xing Wu, Fei Xing, Wu-fei Xing, Wu Fei Xing, Wu Xing,

3436:

Sorry, DJ. The Infobox Town Canada Template is equally as 'crappy' but has about 290 pages that use it and it would be best to be transfered over to Infobox City before TfD. There's also

2717:- This template distinguishes the surname of the person immediately, because the format of Chinese names in English usage is not always the same. Examples that are potentially confusing: 42: 37: 2993:

I often run into Chinese biographical articles that are filed in categories incorrectly and get sorted by the wrong part of the name. This notice advises people not to do that. --

2492:

As the template look now, it leads to quite unencyclopedic articles on Chinese surnames and they often duplicates disambiguation links. I see no use for this template what so ever.--

1434:

based upon the responses here. I would like the template cleaned up a bit, the part that gets me is wife1 issue1, etc. There ought to be a better way to display that information.

2883:

on it. Sorry you got caught in the experimental net; it wasn't fair to you. I think a better strategy on my part will be to try to get the speedy definitions stretched instead (

2771:

case is even more compelling, because Korean names are more commonly transliterated in forms like Kim Jong Il not Kim Jong-il, making disambiguation of name order even harder. —

2840:. Or maybe I'm pointing out the fact that WP is huge now and straining under the weight of stuff it shouldn't have to deal with. PS: I'm not singling out Niohe in particular: 2592:- This template helps to explain surname-given name order of articles named for Chinese people, where the surname comes first in their names. For example, it explains that in 2072:

states, why not just use Infobox City and avoid creating another template? But for now, replace other templates with this one (UK place) and then delete the other templates. —

3854: 2504:- That may be true, but it's very helpful with Chinese bio stubs where it's not immediately clear which is the given name and which is the family name. See half the pages in 3858: 4059:, unless someone shows me where it was decided that all such pictures were unencyclopedic; I can find no such discussion. And as for misuse (which isn't relevant anyway), 3175:: Agreed. But in response to someone else's comment above, I can't think of any reason not to wikilink to a specific surname article in this template if there is one (see 4303: 1284: 4933:- this is not even a list of the awards as they are to be used themselves, but rather a list of the images - completely useless for replicating standardized awards. — 1129:. The nominators must deal with much "religious cruft", but the articles relating to Ellen White are genuine attempts at notability and NPOV. These include primarily: 2849: 1157:. White is a significant figure, being the subject of numerous books (for and against), Ph.D. studies and so on, as well as intense debate within religious studies. 3560:

The template is only being used in three articles and seems like somewhat of a redundant template to be used. For the three articles which use it currently, the {{

3641:

I understand what it's for; it disambiguates pages where the link is the same as the name of the thing. That can be done just as well by using both parameters in

156:

I am not knowledgeable in the subject matter - but my only involvement was to encourage discussion on the talk page. (And to create a talk page as well, hehe.)

4467: 4443: 4294: 4286: 3064:

If I may offer a third opinion here, "speedy keep" is often used as a synonym as "strong keep", with a bias towards closing early. Niohe, it may do good to

2845: 1096:; not notable enough or spawning enough real topics to support this navigation template. There's just really nothing to navigate to or from, to speak of. — 1765: 1683:

being "autobiographical" alone simply not a reason for deletion, speedy or otherwise. Things like this template contribute to that misconception. --

1068: 170:. I trust that the WikiProject has taken care of this, so unless Hbdragon88 is prevaricating (why do I doubt that? :P), the sooner gone the better. 4368:. I do not understand your nomination reason, but no articles should be considered as part of this Wikiproject, as it just creates illustrations. - 2801:

We already have disambiguation links that can lead people to the appropriate article. Now we have so many templates that sometimes pages look like

4845:

there are now four pages of awards. this was created when there was just one page. The template is incomplete. It is really not useful anymore. --

21: 2887:

thing has to shift.) I don't expect this to make you feel particularly better, but it is a real apology, for what little that might be worth. —

3577:. It is slightly more convenient in the cases where it's used, but not that much so, meaning that consistency in templating is probably best. - 4894:

here makes use of two such templates right up at the top of it, and I find them very useful. If not "adopted" before AfD nears closing, then

711:

as I created them based on a discussion that sought to improve Knowledge (XXG) pages by the removal of the large tags that are everywhere.--

752:

this doesn't belong here yet. However the pages of the template should link to the discussion and contain a bit "DONT USE THIS" warning. --

4389:: See related delete nomination imm. above, where same user changed vote for reasons that address the first clause of their post here. — 687:

templates is to encourage people to correct the problem - tucking it away as a meaningless icon in the corner of the page won't do this.

2631:: It basically means close and reject the nomination immediately on procedural grouds as a trivial and meritless deletion nomination. — 17: 4862:

supersedes, and is much more helpful than, this list of links to images. NO BARNSTARS ARE BEING DELETED. Merely this unhelpful list.

4663:. If there's some good reason why we need to template a link like this, I can modify the other template so it'll work just as well. - 4460: 4180: 983:

Pure religious cruft. This person is not notable of herself to merit a template. She is notable only in the context of the church. --

4946: 4826: 3718: 3440: 1857: 821: 460: 4311: 781:

way, that WP is "too cluttered" with templates (the countervailing opinion to that notion is that these templates are big and loud

4197:, btw (again; someone may revert the change again, but I'm going to fix obsolete template so that doing has no visible effect. — 2920: 2606: 3993: 3665:

I understand what it is for as well. I just do not see the need for a template to display a dablink saying something such as

2505: 2448: 2261: 1878: 995: 4416:

not the case.) I'll update further with another comment here if/when the cartoon-related talk-page header is installed. —

4187: 4163: 3984: 3976: 2145: 1769: 1134: 1740:

autobiographies, and conflicst of interest are not reasons for deletion. Only non-notable articles should get deleted --

2669: 1621:

necessarily a reason for deletion. If it doesn't qualify for speedy without a COI, it doesn't qualify with one either. -

1142: 1011: 271: 118: 110: 4967: 4713: 4687: 4525: 4499: 4260: 4241: 4063: 3950: 3931: 3758: 3739: 3493: 3467: 3261: 3229: 3203: 2356: 2337: 1831: 1805: 1506: 1480: 1202: 1176: 924: 898: 526: 500: 354: 328: 76: 4772:

This template is a vestige of when their were fewer awards. It is now so long that it has outlived its usefuleness. --

3839: 3514: 3423: 3364: 1242: 1211: 1149:, the organization set up by her to preserve and promote her writings. Then there are her family members like husband 761: 216: 4113:: Right; that was the point. I wasn't even aware that the WPP had ever had any other purpose than these cartoons. — 3804: 1912: 4952: 4925: 4909: 4874: 4849: 4837: 4814: 4795: 4776: 4731: 4672: 4653: 4613: 4593: 4541: 4484: 4427: 4400: 4377: 4344: 4280: 4226: 4208: 4147: 4124: 4101: 4078: 4034: 3970: 3916: 3889: 3847: 3781: 3724: 3689: 3660: 3632: 3600: 3586: 3568: 3519: 3450: 3431: 3372: 3347: 3323: 3303: 3245: 3190: 3166: 3140: 3111: 3088: 3055: 3034: 2997: 2983: 2970: 2958: 2925: 2898: 2873: 2863: 2809: 2782: 2740: 2701: 2642: 2623: 2611: 2584: 2572: 2551: 2512: 2496: 2467: 2438: 2383: 2322: 2310: 2298: 2286: 2272: 2255: 2243: 2231: 2200: 2182: 2160: 2116: 2089: 2076: 2050: 2038: 2001: 1927: 1920: 1904: 1862: 1791: 1779: 1749: 1732: 1709: 1687: 1675: 1650: 1630: 1609: 1583: 1524: 1465: 1452: 1440: 1425: 1407: 1395: 1383: 1367: 1346: 1334: 1318: 1296: 1273: 1226: 1161: 1121: 1107: 1030: 987: 942: 883: 865: 827: 800: 769: 744: 735:. I agree fully that this is a bad idea, but the way to decide that is not XfD. Come back after it's been decided. - 727: 702: 571: 485: 466: 439: 418: 370: 309: 285: 255: 236: 224: 199: 182: 160: 150: 94: 4891: 4001: 3355:

pftt, couldn't they have all been changed before I needed to remove the CSS hack from that thing 3 days ago ? :D --

1908: 1006:

because of limited amount of articles that related to White. Navigational templates for mere people (as opposed to

836:- they don't even work with all the monobooks. Why not just use the regular template? What's more, the reason that 718: 101: 60: 3385: 3252: 3213: 1916: 958: 1869: 1815: 676: 4966: