Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 27

< February 26	February 28 >

February 27

Template:FreeToUse

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And incorrectly used even if it were. I've just nominated {{NASA}}, its inspiration, for the same reason: attribution belongs in articlespace, not talk page banners. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2012 (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:British medical journal BMJ — 13 August 2011, Volume 343, Number 7819

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British medical journal BMJ — 13 August 2011, Volume 343, Number 7819 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use, single source, non-standard citation template. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

subst and delete - probably created by accident under circumstances like I described at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 20#Template:Independent. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2012 (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:AP

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in a handful of articles; none use the title or date parameters, so it simply creates a link to Associated Press. I can't figure out how the link is associated with the content; example: Chilean Air Force#Aeronaves. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:22, 27 February 2012 (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:Cite local authority

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite local authority (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in 13 articles; replaceable by {{cite web}}. Template was broken for four years until I fixed it. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 20:13, 3 March 2012 (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:Citation parameter legend

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation parameter legend (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; replaced by {{Citation Style documentation}}. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2012 (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:Cite GIS

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 but rename. There is clearly consensus not to delete the template, but at the same time there is clearly consensus that this name, implying it is a citation template, is not appropriate. Discussion on what, exactly, to move this to should be held on the template's talk page. Anomie ⚔ 19:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite GIS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in one article: Pennsylvania Route 848 #1. That use has two external links: one to a directory on an FTP site and one to an XML file. I can't see how either link supports the content. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is useful at the GL, then keep, but rename. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate keep. Used in about 20 project pages. This template is the bone of Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Gis sources and palettes, it support the ongoing Wikipedia:Graphic Lab efforts to push forward higher, GIS quality map making. => Immediate keep, clearly. --Yug (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually used on two Wikipedia pages; other uses are because of transclusions of {{Digital cartography tutorials}}. Is this intended to be an article citation template? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right for the inclusion. It may be use in articles, but it's not it first purpose. It's formerly a project's template for wiki mapmakers at the Map workshop. Stay, it's an important template for us, wiki mapmakers to keep these complex GIS satelite sources well structured. I confirm : immediat keep. Yug (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are only six transclusions of this template, and none of them would be at all adversely impacted by using a regular citation template instead. It is pointless to have ultra-specific citation meta-templates like this, as invariably it takes longer to find and figure out how to use them than it would to simply cite whatever needs referenced using one of the more common templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as a fork of {{cite map}}. If the latter needs minor upgrades to support a merger, then propose them at Template talk:Cite map. Imzadi 1979 → 20:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you know what is GIS before to vote ? The {{cite map}} simply cites maps, a kind of 2D drawing. The template {{cite GIS}} cite a file, a database to download (which can reach 100 Go). That's two different things.
2. From your wording, you are requesting merging, not deletion. Accordingly, please change your 'delete' into merge.
3. There are about 8 fields which are not in {Cite map}. Namely: covered area, datum, projection, size_compressed, size uncompressed (world GIS are about 20 to 100Go files), tile size, tiles total, comments (for mapmakers), editor notes (for the dataset known bugs, limits). These fields are specific to raw materials, to databases, not to end products that are maps.
4. We can suggest an alignment and fixes (extension -> format), and discuss a merging, but currently, deletion is simply not acceptable: we have no other citation template for the fields expressed in point 3. Yug (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GIS Othographic projection centred on China
GIS Location map of the USA
GIS encyclopedic map of the Washingtown state

This is an overly technical format that links to files that are not useful to our audience. If this is useful in the Graphic Lab, then make a proposal to keep and rename. If you really feel this is useful as a citation template, then please make a case. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a general citation template, we didn't include it in {{Citation_Style_1}}. Yes, that's a technical citation template. The audience : First, the direct audience is the 20 active GIS mapmakers and the coming GIS mapmakers accross several wikipedias who produce the most reliable and impressive maps that Wikipedia currently publish (see upper). Secondly, the later audience is the hundreds/thousands who use, watch these maps all around wikipedia. The location_maps / ortographic maps being widely used in hundreds countries, provinces, states articles. These thousands map usages start with these GIS files, and with the Cite GIS template. Yug (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's move forward. Gadget: a. I plan to improve the templates alignments ('extension=' in Cite GIS should be 'format='). b. Why should we rename ? (I don't understand this point) c. I keep thinking we should keep separate Cite map (a 2D image), and Cite GIS (a large database file). Yug (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this should only be used in non-article space. If you call it Cite whatever, then someone will think it is a citation template. I suggest 'GIS data' or the like. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add some "if" functions, so the wikimapmakers' comments may be hidden, and the template may thus be use within few articles (SRTM) or images' pages (File:my_map.svg) in the #Source section.

Keep but rename - I was party to this discussion in June 2011. It's still not clear to me why this is named as if it were a citation template, given that it's not supposed to be used in articles; but if it is a citation template, why is it necessary to have parameters for technical stuff like the compressed size? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's simply not necessary at all. This has no expressed advantage over simply writing out its contents: it's engineering for the sake of engineering. You were right to question the necessity of it in that previous discussion, and nothing's changed since. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's say that: there are -for now- 21 GIS sources with ~8 fields each in Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Gis sources and palettes. It make near 200 characteristics systematically and shortly published, organized, and commented. GIS mapmaking is pretty tough. These fields are need so we know the level of difficulty of each source, systematically documented, and clearly displayed, so we generate more high quality maps. Chris, if you don't like automation and want take on yourself the task to keep the page in order, systematically document each field, identify and find online the missing fields by hand for the next one~two years, then let's delete this engineering and we let you take the lead to manage these 200 fields by hand, I leave you this task happily. Otherwise, let others work with automations. Yug (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What "automation" is taking place here? These templates are not being kept up to date automatically, so far as I can tell: they're being hand-written and maintained. If that is not the case then I apologise profusely. However, if it is the case, then this is simply some ultra-domain-specific citation template whose existence probably leads to a higher maintenance burden on the content it wraps due to the additional knowledge and skill required to deal with the extra markup. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a wiki, more sources will be added, it's better to get them properly documented with the license, source, precision, projection, octet size, bugs, key tips, etc. With this template editors have a clear form to fill, missing fields are visible, and we get a systematically organized display. Without form, these points are variable (see similar GIS page on FR and DE). Having well organized source for tough files is a good step to ease GIS learning. Yug (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
question Is this template intended for use in articles? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It "can" be. If you hide the comments & editor notes fields. But will be quite rare anyway. Only a hand of NASA missions such as the SRTM, or Geographic agencies such as the USGS may need to cite these data, which is what they produce or publish. Yug (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - From what I'm reading it sounds like this is being used to deal with the data of the map images (the files themselves). It appears to be doing a bunch of things at once. Which is probably how it's now being used both in article space and project space simultaneously. I would suggest a rename (and probably some editing for clarity), though not sure to what. Would someone clueful in images have a suggestion as to the naming conventions of File: related templates? - jc37 22:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Yug (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2012 (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:Adt

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 Nomination withdrawn. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is supposed to be substituted, so that could explain a lack of transclusions. The documentation just needs a bit of work. PleaseStand (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I missed the subst. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:57, 28 February 2012 (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 vodka

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox vodka (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use, redundant to (and fork of?) {{Infobox beverage}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 20:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single use infobox, now converted to infobox beverage. --hydrox (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2012 (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:Cool World

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cool World (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four links, all interlinked well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 27 February 2012 (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:Citation metadata

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation metadata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Unused -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Merged these two TfDs since {{Citation metadata}} calls {{COinS}} ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one's setting off my mental alarm bells. Was the template really replaced by equivalent code? I think Template_talk:Citation/core/Archive_5#Problem... may suggest what's going on. It looks like the quest for load-time efficiency had something to do with it, but I don't really understand the matter right now. Perhaps User:Smith609 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) can help generate some clarity. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The COinS metadata is directly generated by {{Citation/core}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:36, 8 March 2012 (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:Cite/author

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite/author (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2012 (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:Cite EU regulation

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite EU regulation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; no updates for three years. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes, I created it ages ago. I was going somewhere with it, but haven't yet. More than happy to say goodbye to it. TimR (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused, and deletion approved by creator - Happysailor ^(Talk) 14:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per above. Imzadi 1979 → 20:18, 3 March 2012 (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:New page

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 usable consensus. I see no consensus to delete here. The closest thing to consensus here is to merge to {{in creation}}, but now one of the supporters of deletion here has nominated that for deletion too; closing this as "merge" could therefore wind up as a backdoor delete. Which leaves us with nothing usable for consensus. Perhaps a discussion about merging all of the various "please don't delete this page, I'm in the middle of creating it" templates would be appropriate, but that is beyond the scope of this TFD. Anomie ⚔ 19:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template serves no useful purpose. If one creates an article that requires more work before it will survive on Wikipedia one drafts it in user space and moves it into the main namespace when ready. Since the template states it is for experienced editors they know this. It simply gives an illusory cloak, a Harry Potter Invisibility Cloak, if you like, under which an article hides, or it gives the creator an illusion of some sort of security. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A case of "over-templating"! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:New unreviewed article. 65.94.76.224 (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the current content looks like it's a weird {{underconstruction}} template. 65.94.76.224 (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even the template's creator 'misused' it by forgetting to remove it after the stipulated time period. I removed it from an article I sent to MfD today and found he was the creator of that, too, and had created that many moons ago without revisiting it to remove this template (per his own instructions in it!). I feel templates that "ought to be removed after x time period" are ones we should at best deprecate and usually delete. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've been keeping half an eye on the use of this template for the last year or so (see http://toolserver.org/~tb/NEWP/). In general it doesn't seem to be much misused - for the most part those editors using it remote it promptly and do indeed carry out a series of improving edits over the hours/days it's on a new page. That said, it shouldn't *really* ne necessary. - TB (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's partly my point in nominating it. An experienced editor simply should not be using it. Bringing a half way decent new article to main namespace is a delicate art of pulling many different threads together. Slapping a template on the top to pseudo protect it while we get our act together is, well... weird. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer deletion to redirecting. Debresser (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Underconstruction}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:In creation. This template is fairly redundant to that template. And the other template does has it's uses (i.e. preventing edit conflicts with users doing new page patrol). Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That template should also be redirected to {{under construction}}. The semantic difference between the two is negligible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to {{in use}}~~Keep - This template seems to exist to function as a type of {{in use}} template, ~~which is why I think that is where this should redirect to.~~ but I think it would be best if it were kept. - Purplewowies (talk) ~~21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)~~ 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that there are already !votes to redirect it to four different other templates indicates that this template doesn't cleanly overlap with any one of them. In fact, IMO the template that this most overlaps with is {{New user article}}, but that is specifically for new users. {{New page}} clearly has a use in discouraging the premature deletion of new articles that should be improved rather than deleted. I do think the wording is a bit testy and could be revised, but the template does have a clear use. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the name of the template indicates a duplication with {{New unreviewed article}}, so the name is bad. The content of the template indicates a duplication of {{underconstruction}} subtype {{in creation}} ... (though why do we need "in creation" ? ) ... it's not indicative of {{in use}}, since the text does not that the article should not be edited because of possible edit conflicts. So, it should just be replaced (transclusion replacement) by a pair of templates {{New unreviewed article}} and {{under construction}}. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to {{New unreviewed article}} after replacing the userspace transclusions with {{userspace draft}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if for no other reason to avoid biting the newbees. It takes time and practice to learn the various nuts and bolts of wikilinks, citations, adding categories and so on. It's fraustrating to create an article but within 20 minutes it's slapped with "No Categories", "Bare URLs", "Orphaned Article" tags and such. It's as if somebody is on the prowl just waiting to tell a creater, "Your term paper is incomplete!" Wikipedia's own guide to article creation states that once created it's an ongoing editing process.Mariepr (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that address the repeatedly-stated concern that this is redundant to at least two more widely-deployed templates? Or are you suggesting that this tag should act as some sort of barrier against other editors tagging pages? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The later. In the article SS Santa Rosa (1932) the "new page" tag was removed by another editor within the hour and slapped with the above-mentioned tags. If, as the text in the template reads, the author appears to have taken no action to tie up the loose threads then any editor is justified the bringing the article up to standards (or nominating it for deletion). While nobody "owns" a Wikipedia article, let's give those who have taken the time and effort to write one some courtesy before coming out with the red pens. Mariepr (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Couldn't that be dealt with by minor modifications to {{under construction}}? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The current text of the {{under construction}} template reads that it is for expanding or modifying an existing article. A new page however has a lot more technical details that need attention. The {{new page}} tag specifically states it as such and 1) the author knows it requires more work and 2) intends to see that is indeed carried out. I wouldn't mind another editor coming and him/herself doing the fixes. It's the "lighting a fire and running away" by slapping tags and disappearing that is pretty inconsiderate. (Especially when it is done within the hour as it was with one of my recent experiences.) Mariepr (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        IMO that's a failing of {{under construction}} (which is semantically very much more tied to "this is new and being created" than "this is having work done on it" anyway). I've yet to see a concrete argument for why the two situations really need two different templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        We'll have to agree to disagree on this one as I believe that the argument has been made where {{new page}} and {{under construction}} have different uses. There needs to be some tag where the author identifies a page is a work in progress and will the tag-happy sharks please not be so quick to draw fresh blood. Mariepr (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. I suggest modifying {{Under construction}} so that |new=yes (or any other nonblank value) puts the word "new" in front of "article or section" or "section". Then I can't see that there would be any need for this template. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this ends up getting deleted, I agree that that is what we ought to do. —Comp dude¹²³ 04:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider merging I created this template initially, but I actually like {{in creation}} that someone else apparently has created better. I have to give this some thought. Either one serves the purpose. Sebwite (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but perhaps merge to {{in creation}} – It's perfect for telling other editors that this is a new page that's being created and the user that created it is currently working on it. But this is really similar to {{in creation}} so perhaps it could be redirected to that template. —Comp dude¹²³ 16:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{in creation}} although I'm not totally convinced that template is necessary. When creating new articles, I just use {{under construction}}. I don't see that the wording for that template restricts it to only existing articles. Technically speaking, an article is existing after the first edit is saved. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{in creation}} which I agree may also not be needed, but lets deal with one template at a time. Pol430 talk to me 19:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I have put {{in creation}} up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_16#Template:In_creation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There needs to be a real serious discussion on new article creation. There is too much time wasted with cleaning up all the rubbish that is to easily created. ... sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:09, 16 March 2012 (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:Mama's Family

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 for now. If all of the articles are eventually redirected due to a consensus decision, then the template will be useless, and can be speedily deleted. Until then, keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mama's Family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All content was redirected except the episode list — the character bios were all unsourced and full of in-universe plotty stuff. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template is standard and matches that of plenty of others. - The Real One Returns (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making sense. Every link on this template redirects to Mama's Family except for the episode list. The template now navigates nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is because you took it upon yourself to redirect all of the articles back to the Mama's Family article. They articles and template were fine before you began to edit them. The Real One Returns (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the articles because they were full of in-universe, plot summary and had no relevant content. Which is what you do with such articles — redirect or delete. So now as it is, the template only points back to the Mama's Family article a bunch of times, making it pointless. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No actually. primary sources are just fine. And what you do is go get sources yourself, not be so non-wiki-way as to just remove content because you don't like it.... - jc37 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily close as out-of-process, per WP:SPEEDYKEEP criterion 2d "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion": This strikes me as a massive process problem, a blatant fait accompli. The articles should have been taken to AfD first or consensus arrived at (e.g. on the main article's talk page) to merge/redirect them. TfD is completely inappropriate so soon after such WP:BOLD action, given that the R and D parts of WP:BRD are pretty likely to happen, judging from how The Real One Returns feels about the matter. I heartily agree with the redirections and their rationale, mind you, but this TfD is premature. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking them to AFD seems like process for the sake of process. I don't see anyone disputing the redirection yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Real One Returns is obviously disputing it, though may not be aware of how to undo it. Don't split hairs just for the sake of splitting hairs. PS: I didn't say "take it to AfD", I mentioned that as one option. At this point, establishing consensus for the consolidation at Talk:Mama's Family seems like the wise choice. If that happens, then the template can be speedily deleted as uncontroversial maintenance. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_21#Template:Characters on The West Wing for directly comparable "redirect and TfD" issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with saying "you redirected those all yourself, fait accompli is bad" and such is that because it's trivial to set up a support network of navboxes, infoboxes, categories et cetera it is far easier to indefinitely expand fiction elements into a farm of plotcruft than it is to consolidate them again. Similarly, merging fiction character articles back to the main topic is much harder than it should be because it's trivial to wikilawyer over process (if one starts with an AfD it's "AfD is not for merges": if one starts with merges it's "go and get formal consensus"), especially as the majority of the participants on any given subject talk page will be fans of the work and probably significantly less interested in our notability guidelines than the norm. In this particular case, is it likely that all the characters will be spun back out to their own articles? No, not in the slightest. Therefore, let's see about dismantling the support network with as little fuss as possible so as not to encourage that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the sake of process. I don't disagree with TPH's assessment that these articles were full of in-universe information and essentially plot summaries, and would probably fail our inclusion guidelines if taken to AFD. However, I'm saying 'keep' purely because I'm uncomfortable with the idea that a single editor can redirect a bunch of articles and then delete the navigational template immediately without seeking wider consensus. In this case, TPH should have got consensus first to get rid of the character articles, either with a discussion on Talk:Mama's Family or an AFD nomination. Alternatively, boldly redirecting them is permissible, but then the navigational template should only be deleted once a certain period of time has passed and it's become clear that no one cares about these articles enough to undo the redirects, in which case consensus can be said to have supported your action. In this case, TPH redirected the articles and nominated the template for deletion the very next day, without waiting to see if the redirects would stand; I think that's being a little too bold. I say, keep the template for now and give it a few weeks to see if anyone bothers to revert the redirects. If not, then it can be deleted. Yes, this is precisely 'process for the sake of process', but it's also the best way to ensure consensus supports your actions. Remember, there is no deadline. Robofish (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument isn't making a lick of sense. I can't send the template to TFD just because I redirected the articles? Sounds like process just for the sake of process. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it has no purpose for redirected articles, and an episode list (there) and a character list (not there, but could be) don't need a nav template. However, I agree with Robofish that it's better to wait a while (at least a week?) before talking the navigation template to TfD, just to be sure that the redirects stick. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Once the redirects are undone, the template will serve it's navigation purpose. As an aside to address the broader situation, this is just another part of the back n forth in fiction. This whole attitude of "not in my encyclopdia". We have had many LONG RfCs on these matters, but meanwhile, XfD is continually used to remove fiction-related content. And this "redirect as a soft delete" move is being done to facilitate moves at both at TfD and CfD. (And AfD for list pages, and RfD for the redirects themselves.) It's gaming the system imho. - jc37 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While creating navboxes, infoboxes et cetera for 100% fiction content and then filibustering the deletion of any part of said cruftweb on grounds of interdependence is not gaming the system? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without directly responding, let me ask: Who do you see as doing that? - jc37 00:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You implied bad faith on behalf of those attempting to clear up this mess. That's no less specious than implying bad faith on behalf of the editors adding said content in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mess is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. And your comments by their placement, were suggesting you meant me. Which a simple check to the template's edit history should clear up fairly quickly. (It would appear that you've edited the navbox more than I have...) But while you're calling things "specious"... Everytime I see someone use the word cruft, it suggests to me that the person is someone pushing an agenda, or at least holding a bias. Good luck in disproving that assertion. Now please feel free to say something you presume about me. And please, do like others have and merely look at my user page and my comments in whatever discussion you happen to be in at the particular moment, and make a snap judgement. I've been accused of being both a deletionist and an inclusionist, among many other things. In the end, we're all Wikipedians here, and our goal, last I knew, was to build an encyclopedia. And granted it might be considered Argumentum ad Jimbonem, but: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. Have a nice day. - jc37 04:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, the redirects were reverted, so the template is now useful. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A better resolution would be a soft close stating that when someone eventually jumps through the hoops to delete the content in question this can be speedied as housekeeping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Chris. I just came across some of the articles of the characters and the fictional town - all of which are told in an "in-universe" style biography without any sources. All should be redirected. When the happens, the template can be deleted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:58, 2 March 2012 (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.