Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11

1149:. They are the highlight of many articles, especially in the case of content disputes, misinterpretations, numerous quotes given in citation templates that provide context, and numerous citations to a single source. People should be able to access the sources as easily as possible, and to glance over them while scrolling through the article to see the breadth and briefly consider their reliability. This template places undue weight on article content, and there are already enough concerns about Knowledge (XXG) being unreliable. The reasons given on the talk page are not convincing, and there's no need to fork this discussion back there. – 774:- I do not understand the attitude that the references are something to hide. They are part of the article. When I need to do my own research on a subject, I look to the references. When I want to evaluate just how reliable a particular Knowledge (XXG) article is, I look to the references (their number & diversity, at least). The references are what legitimize an article, they aren't shameful things to be swept under the rug. If there really are issues with people being able to find the "See also" or "External links" sections, the better answer would be to move those sections above the references in the article. — 1607:

for legacy reasons (I didn't personally want to update taxoboxes to the new syntax unless I was sure the species were "secure", as the conservation status of "secure" is itself somewhat dubious and rarely (ever?) referenced.. And also I don't use AWB). But there's really no special reason this template cannot be replaced on all articles that use it simply with the word "secure". Full list of related (deprecated) templates:

4448:- which was the original format for depth charts - is his own property and that the template deletion doesn't apply. In fact, every ] article was redirected to their template counterparts when the templates were created as an easier alternative. He has removed the TFD tag from the template as well, and redirected the template to the article, which he has removed my redirect from. I was already planning on putting 833:

hidden or downplayed. It will also likely confuse many people to have multiple scroll bars (I see this quite often with users I support or am kind enough to help). In addition, I have some other concerns related to likely difficulties the disabled, particularly the motor impaired, may experience with this template. This appears to be a solution in search of a problem. --

1104:) and provide an "easy consensus" without the annoying requirement of using logic. I'm not that big of a fan of the template (most issues mentioned above could be resolved with CSS, such as the page-printing issue, but accessibility is an issue I'm worried about). I suggest we take discussion to a more appropriate forum, the template talk page. 139:

feel that she is famous/noteworthy enough to warrant the creation or inclusion of this template on such pages. What if every actor had a template like this one that was placed on every article about a movie/TV show that have been in? Articles would be cluttered with unnecessary templates. I therefore nominate this template for deletion.—

2159: 711:, navbox tempplates, etc. Any references not shown in the first results are only click further away (mouse focus in the scroll box) than they would have been before, and are in no way obscured or affected when reached through - In my book an acceptable trade off for a more polished design and more accessible final sections. 2747:

I don't think it's necessary and it makes the article appear shoddy. Really, what purpose does it serve? All articles on wikipedia are subject to vandalism or quickly changing events. As explained above, the fact that the person is a candidate should be obvious in the first couple of sentences of the

832:

As stated on the template's Talk page: While the "long references list makes it difficult for some to notice following items like See Also" argument has merit, there are too many disadvantages to this solution. Most importantly, having a long list of references is in no way something that needs to be

716:

And now the caveat: The template currently renders when the page is shown in the printable layout, resulting in any references that would have been accessible to a reader with a web-browser being inaccessible to the print reader. Possibly also raises issues for disabled users with screen readers. If

138:

I believe that this template is not helpful or noteworthy. It is present on Elisha Cuthbert's article which already includes a filmography; making this template redundant. It has also been placed on all articles about movies/TV shows that she has appeared in. I mean no disrespect to her, but I don't

1473:

What you say used to be the case, but now the taxobox template handles it. The contents of the template is not actually transcluded — it's the key for a switch statement. So adding a tick to all "secure" species (as in your example) can be achieved by changing only the taxobox template (which would

1606:

I'm the guy who changed the taxobox enough to allow this (and many related templates) to become redundant and unnecessary. However, to lessen the impact of the transition I made sure the old templates still worked. It's not there for tracking purposes (you could use a category for that) it's there

2720:

This is the sort of comment I don't understand. Are there readers who look at an article about a living person (which should normally be clear that it is about a living person from the first sentence), who is running for office (which would normally be mentioned in the first paragraph), and think

2507:

This template appears to be used to warn readers that an article about a political candidate may change dramatically as the election approaches. I don't see why this is needed; the article itself should clearly indicate that the subject is a candidate in an upcoming election, and as such a reader

152:

As above, this template creates a "slippery slope" that ends with high-budget movies having five or six of these templates on them. Actors and actresses are already listed in a "cast" section in the articles for pieces in which they've appeared, and their individual articles have (or should have)

2782:

an "event", which would be something that would take (say) a month or less, but rather is a situation that can end abruptly (candidate drops out of race) or can go on for well over a year (presumably at least two of the declared candidates for U.S. President will still be in the running in June

1507:

This template is used by many articles that span multiple wikiprojects. They should be notified. I will respect the decision of the editors of these projects. But if they are not notified, I would vote for keep. Beside easy tracking, as User:N pointed out, the style can be easily changed in the

1395:

This template does nothing, simply replacing the template code with "secure" on the article page. That could easily be typed on its own. The only problem I see with deletion is that many articles use the template in their infoboxes, and someone would need to go through and replace it at those

2622:

per Cary Bass, Lord Metroid, and Haemo. It's an important, minimally intrusive template that notifies readers that the content is likely to change and that the page/section is possibly biased or vandalized. It also notifies editors to be on their guards to revert any vandalism to the

2565:- I think it's important to bring it to the attention, like a "Current event" template, that information is subject to change -- and may not be set it stone. This is especially true of things like vandalism, or weight issues on the article. Template might need a bit of re-write. -- 976:

and eventually landed here. People who like the template are less likely to go to the talk page and say "hey, this is a good idea". They probably wouldn't visit the template page at all. In addition, the decision has a huge implication to the site. So more audience would be prudent.

971:

The question of deleting this template depends on whether we want to adopt this style or not. I have not made up my mind yet. But I think the process would be flawed if we only discuss it here. People who have seen this template and don't like it would voice their opinion on

879:- While I do agree that the opinions expressed on the template's talk page should be taken into account in this discussion, I see no reason to end this process prematurely especially since debate on the talk page seems to have ceased since the template was nominated here.— 200:

all editors above gave very good reasons. Actors and movies/TV is a many-to-many mapping. The "many" isn't a handful, it's really many. Imagine what it would be like if we have a nav box for every actor. This is something that should be avoided in a M2M mapping.

953:

I suggest grouping all the "City of Chicago Dept. of Pl. and Devpmt., Landmarks Div." sources under one heading to remove all the repetition, wiith the year and accessdate mentioned once at the top. This may not be exactly proper style, but it's common sense.

1490:. This might make sense if the standard terminology were something hard to remember, like "dsgfhargea". But to use this template, you already have to know that the proper term is "secure", because it is in the title. So this just adds 10 extra characters. - 4149:

I didn't see the project discussion, but we can manage without these. For templates like this, the Wikiproject's decision is all but binding because these require frequent maintenance, and if nobody wants to maintain them, they shouldn't be used anymore.

4452:

and the rest of the old articles up for deletion as redirects to non-existent pages, but should I go ahead with it now, before the templates are actually deleted? I've tried to talk to him, but he continues to believe that the article is "his."

999:

Even though the template has been disabled for now pending technical issues, the link to this deletion debate is still visible on every page this template has already been transcluded into. I think that should attract enough interested parties.

2808:

I agree with what was said above. Political candidates pages are highly subjected to vandalism, therefore we need it. It also saves the reader from having to read most of the article to release that it's about a person running for an office.

1410:

apparently this is being used as a method to track endangered species status in infoboxes. I would bring the matter up with the appropriate wikiproject and ask them what their plans for it are before I would be comfortable deleting this.

1396:

articles; this could be easily accomplished by someone using AWB, or I would be happy to do it manually, (before the template is deleted, so I can use "what links here,") if consensus is reached here that it should indeed be deleted. —

816:. I think the effort to build this template was an honest effort. Although I am not in favour of this template I would delay the discussion to delete it altogether until consensus has evolved in the debate on its talk page 4288: 4218: 4262:

Because of this, it's impossible to keep track of the minor day-to-day changes made to each chart. It's best to just leave a link to an official or unofficial one, as has been done with all roster templates (i.e.

4193:

Explain what "depth chart" is (like to an Australian who doesn't know much about American football), and what is the main reason for deletion beside "vote from a project"? Changes to often like stock prices?

2610:

Future candidates are highly subject to vandalism. This template helps to identify that this page is subject to change and may contain, on occasion, complete nonsense or fabrication of facts.

1229:

seems gimmicky. I also like the idea that you can click on a ref in a normal article and you'll go directly to the ref. I actually think that's pretty cool. Also don't like the appearance.

1460:

It might only be one word, but if we ever want to change it, e.g. to add a tick or set a background colour, it only has to be changed in one place. I see this template as following basic

2548:, so feel free to ignore it altogether.) Often it will show immediately at the top what only becomes clear much later in the text. That said, I understand the rationale for deletion. 939: 187: 2286:

got mixed in with the others, as it is not in Italian, and not related to the others. I'd appreciate the nom explaining this. Not only is this in English, but is used by people like

4293: 4187: 4056: 4465:

They'll all be deleted soon, so I wouldn't bother with him. If they're deleted and he tries to recreate the Bucs chart then I'd just notify an admin who will speedy delete it.

762:- it makes the article look better and it's more clearly-presented and even if it hides any notes, why not, this template doesn't hinder somebody from finding the sources etc. 42: 37: 2711:

per Haemo. This saves users from having to read through an entire article on the subject, which may likely be long and dry, before they are notified that changes may occur.

1100:

IMHO, assuming both bad faith and stupidity in order to delete this template doesn't help that much. Deleting it will only create unfair prejudice against recreation (

2699:. Apparently this template is going to be kept, but I think it could still use some revision because currently it doesn't mention anything about vandalism or bias. -- 2055:

it's just a collection of italian wikipedia templates for userspace, and is just linked between themselves, to User:João Felipe C.S, User:WISo, and User:Akradecki. —

4255:

Unlike rosters, most teams don't publish their official depth charts, and thus it's up to an editor to use an unofficial chart or make up their own, which violates

728:, which will allow some grace time for its replacement if necessary. Note that the problem at hand also extends to both template:scroll box and the alternative 750:- Relatively few article contain footnote sections which are unacceptably large. And for those that are large this template makes accessability worse. 1198:

Serious usability issue. If you scroll up and down, and then your cursor happens to land within the box, further scrolling takes place in the box.

1206:

Besides the number of bullet points above, Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia after all. Students and researchers should be given more weight. --

21: 1936: 921:. It does not seem to be working in Firefox. I may revert to scroll box, but feel these types of semi-collapsibility options are important. 121: 4411: 1928: 4264: 113: 1145:

References are as worthy of being shown on the page as the external links below, and more worthy than semi-related articles in collapsed

1919: 1570:

transclude in many articles). I think it's hidden in some of the {{#switch}}. The taxobox certainly transcludes it in articles: look at

4250:, which should help you with understanding a depth chart more. There are essentially two problems with listing them on Knowledge (XXG): 2589:

this tag is useful to the readers as well as the editors, like "current event" or "future film". I agree with the two editors above. --

143: 97: 17: 931: 179: 104: 60: 3642: 3540: 2962: 1962: 3404: 3370: 3064: 2894: 3812: 3676: 3650: 3608: 3548: 3506: 3030: 2970: 1970: 3710: 3302: 3268: 3132: 2767: 1265: 935: 183: 4179:

I respect the domain experts a lot. But if you were going to post this outside of the project space, please do these two things:

3914: 3778: 3412: 3378: 3072: 2996: 2928: 2902: 3948: 3820: 3684: 3633: 3616: 3531: 3514: 3438: 3098: 3038: 2953: 2457:

because consensus is about clear and because the notice is screwing up too many highly visible articles, consider this IAR. --

1953: 695:, I believe this template superior to Reflist for one reason: Extremely lengthy footnotes sections (100+), such as those found 3744: 3718: 3574: 3395: 3361: 3336: 3310: 3276: 3234: 3166: 3140: 3055: 2885: 2841: 1894: 1860: 4488:- most teams have yet to reveal their actual depth chart. Maybe we can re-add it when we have some form on confirmation. ---- 4394: 4369: 4230: 4203: 3880: 3846: 3803: 3667: 3599: 3497: 3472: 3200: 3021: 2598: 2482: 2131: 1517: 1215: 1032: 1009: 986: 888: 783: 464: 210: 3922: 3786: 3701: 3293: 3259: 3123: 3004: 2936: 3956: 3905: 3769: 3446: 3106: 2987: 2919: 2789:

the template serves to prompt unfamiliar editors to be more vigilant about POVish and potentially controversial statements.

153:

sections listing the movies in which they've appeared. Users can already navigate both ways, without templates like these.

3939: 3752: 3582: 3429: 3344: 3242: 3174: 3089: 1902: 1868: 304: 3735: 3565: 3327: 3225: 3157: 2635:

per above. It's not intrusive at all and it is used very effectively in many articles, and I don't see why it should go.

1885: 1851: 1810: 4319:, as their basically all single use templates and when they're substituted, the template ceases to have any use at all. 3888: 3871: 3854: 3837: 3480: 3463: 3208: 3191: 2490: 2473: 2429: 4513: 4016: 3982: 2857: 2828: 2445: 2419: 1826: 1800: 1334: 1308: 586: 560: 267: 241: 76: 4449: 4445: 4243: 4242:

The creator of the original depth chart articles (which will go up for deletion as empty redirects after these - i.e.

2336:

Would be happy to move it to my userspace, but a move while it's at TfD is not appropriate. Will move when it closes.

4072:: I combined these into one TfD, as they're similar, have the same deletion rationale, and it's much easier to read. 820:. If consensus becomes, that this template should not be used, deletion seems in place; otherwise it should be kept. 295: 251: 1651: 312: 647:

This is template is not helpful, hides references (which is unnecessary and counterproductive), and is inferior to

4007: 3973: 2264: 2229: 2030: 1996: 1621: 4512: