Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

February 28[edit]

Template:ME-importance[edit]

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:ME-importance (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

redundant to {{notability}} -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment If this gets replaced by {{notability}}, please make sure that the tagged articles still fall into Category:Tolkien articles of unclear notability. YLSS (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete after replacing with {{notability|cat=Tolkien}} or simply {{notability}}. If the project wants to use their own guidelines or something, they have choices such as modifying {{WikiProject Middle-earth}} as mentioned by IP user below. -PC-XT+ 04:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC) (This !vote has been updated. See below discussion, including #Template:Chemical-importance for reasoning) -PC-XT+ 01:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, there is nothing wrong with two templates instead of one, but there is something wrong with a template that's so complex that a new editor can't even fix a typo in the template. See comments below. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete if Middle-Earth needs this, it should be added as a switch to activate the category at {{WikiProject Middle-earth}} , similar to how "|attention=yes" works on many WikiProject banners. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    I have updated my !vote, mostly in support of this idea, because the {{notability}} replacement still doesn't link to the relevant guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Standards#References, and I'm not convinced that it should link to anything but main guidelines. -PC-XT+ 06:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Jeez, people. It's used on exactly two pages, both of which are imminently deleteable fancruft. Redirect those appropriately and kill this off. Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete without merge, per Chris. I see no reason why this is any different than any other fictional element. Users desiring to find possibly unnotable articles can use Wikipedia:Catscan (by crosssecting Cat:Tolkien/Middle Earth/whathaveyou and their subcategories with Cat:All articles of dubious notability [I'm not sure of the exact names of these cats). --Izno (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no need to have specialized notability templates for each topic. -- P 1 9 9   14:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per P199. A notability template for each topic would be just more alphabet soup, and project-specific templates only encourage projects to try pushing their own private notability criteria in place of community-wide norms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
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:Chemical-importance[edit]

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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Chemical-importance (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Redundant to {{notability}} if we set up chemistry as a parameter. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Merge with {{notability}}. There's no real reason why chemistry should have it's own notability template. Osarius - Want a chat? 22:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge Delete per Izno, below. -PC-XT (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep and at the very least don't merge. The complexity of wiki markup is a significant barrier to new editors. A merge would make template more complex for zero benefit. If a new editor sees a typo, we want them to fix it, no get confused by complex code and give up. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    I can see your point, but adding chemistry to {{notability}} won't affect it's complexity very much, as it's designed for this. {{notability|chemistry}} isn't harder to use than {{Chemical-importance}}, in my opinion. -PC-XT+ 05:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    I mean for editing the template, not adding it to articles. If a template doesn't have to be complex, it shouldn't be, so that we can encourage new people to edit. There is literally no benefit of putting both uses in a single template, and absolutely zero harm in having two templates. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    Speaking as a relative newcomer, myself, I don't expect to know as much as other !voters about this. I'm simply saying I prefer the way the notability template allows for maintenance of all its many forms by one edit, if necessary, keeping them organized in a uniform package for the whole site. A user who learns this one template can use it anywhere, rather than only in the one subject they find it. Many specialized templates would be harder to maintain. As I said, I see the point about template complexity, but since {{notability}} is a protected template, currently only edited by administrators, I think they should be the ones to decide how it's arranged for effective editing. It's designed to have a parameter, such as sports, film, numbers, music, geography, astro (short for astronomy) etc., and to me, it looks like chemistry belongs among those choices. If I'm wrong, forgive me. -PC-XT+ 05:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, maybe merge - I still think there is a difference between a lack of notability and a lack of a description of notability, and that that should be differentiated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    Note: this could then just become a 'redirect' to {{notability}}. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Eight transclusions. The benefit ratio of keeping this fork is practically nonexistent. Just redirect it. Ego White Tray is, to put it mildly, incorrect in stating that there is "absolutely zero harm" in proliferation of micro-forks of common templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete without merge, per Chris. The reason the other parameters exist is because there are subguidelines to the main notability guideline. Users desiring to find possibly unnotable articles can use Wikipedia:Catscan (by crosssecting Cat:Chemistry and its subcategories with Cat:All articles of dubious notability [I'm not sure of the exact names of these cats). --Izno (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for these comments. I didn't know about WP:Catscan. I should have noticed that parameters without their own subguidelines are not documented. {{notability|chemistry}} actually works fine, without being explicitly supported, though I now see there's really no reason to use it, and am changing my !vote. One note: The category used by this template is not a standard name supported by {{notability}}, and is unneeded with WP:Catscan, anyway, so maybe it should be deleted, as well. I think it will be unused when the template is removed from those articles. -PC-XT+ 01:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. These kind of tags are incredibly obtrusive for very low benefit. If the notability is contested, then take it to PROD or AFD. If someone wants a discussion of the article notability or to express an opinion, then that is what the talk page is for.TCO (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{notability}}; this template is completely redundant, but outright deleting will break some older revisions; therefore, a redirect is preferable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
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 needed span[edit]

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 consider changing the appearance to either a different color, an underline, or a mouse over, or a combination of these. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Citation needed span (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This template is an extension of the traditional {{citation needed}} template, and its purpose is to show what text is believed to require a citation by highlighting it with a pale pinkish background color. There are a few reasons I'm nominating it for deletion:

  1. The meaning of the pink highlighting is not clear to readers or editors. While reading a passage of text, they come along a sentence or two that are highlighted pink, and they wonder what the significance of the highlighting is. It's confusing to our readers, because there is nothing that clearly links the pink highlighting to the "citation needed" tag after it.
  2. It's unnecessary. The traditional {{citation needed}} template has long been sufficient on its own, and I'm unaware of any significant confusion regarding exactly what words require a citation.
  3. It's more difficult for editors to work with. Newer editors who are not intimately familiar with how templates work may be confused as to how to remove this template after inserting a citation. Not only do they need to know to find the {{citation needed span|text= and delete it, but they also have to remember to find the }} at the end and delete it. This is much more difficult for newer editors to figure out than just removing a simple {{citation needed}} template.
  4. It's ugly. It brings undue attention to certain words of an article, not because they are more important, but because they are disputed. How does it serve our readers to draw their attention (even more than normal) to potentially dubious statements?

For these reasons, I believe we should do away with this template and replace all current transclusions with {{citation needed}}. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 15:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. Where one sentence - no more, and no less - requires a reference, {{citation needed}} works just fine. But when two or more sentences require citation, tagging all of them {{cn}} produces clutter in both wikicode and rendered page: the {{Citation needed span}} template can be used to enclose all such sentences. The {{Citation needed span}} template really comes into its own where the text requiring citation is less than the whole sentence.
    Previous discussions related to this exist at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 28#Template:Citation needed; Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 28#Template:Reference necessary; Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 9#Revival of Merge Discussion - I'm sure there have been others. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Sometimes, it is necessary to specify exactly what needs source. A talk page discussions has already shown that the meaning is clear to the readers or editors. Others who are initially surprised at seeing the highlight will find out its meaning soon, when they edit, although the nominator needs to have a lot more faith in the intelligence of the editors. Moderation in use of this template is necessary, therefore point #3 of the nominator is actually a plus, but again, editors are generally expected to become familiar with much more complex structures. As for the "ugly" objection, well, fixing is the solution. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    No, a talkpage discussion showed some users found it highly confusing and some users did not. None of those users, it's worth pointing out, are purely readers. I don't think the nominator is saying anything about the intelligence of editors, more the selective blindness that 'editor' status confers. Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That this is constantly nominated suggests that something has to give here, and I'm inclined to suggest that the colouring be altered to only occur on mouseover. That compromise would enable the template to continue to do its job without being as annoying as it currently is. Indeed, I'd probably use it far more often if it appeared like a standard {{cn}} until the fix tag were moused over to identify the problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    I'm enthusiastic about Chris' proposed solution. I agree this template is quite ugly but I do use it as I find it more helpful than a |reason= field. Making it a mouse-over feature would be ideal. -Thibbs (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    I could also use better colors. In fact, a knowledgeable editor can fix it right now, because it is not edit-protected. I am not in favor of mouseover solution because it is not touch-compatible. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    Would a dotted underline work for styling? --Izno (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    Hi. I believe you are referring to the deleted template. Yes, I just love that style but is there consensus in its favor? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    "not touch-compatible" is not something I find very convincing; if the choice is between some of our users not being presented with something and all of our users being presented with something intrusive, we should probably go for the former. I am perfectly comfortable with a dotted underline. Ironholds (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    The strength of Chris' suggestion is that it addresses Scottywong's point #1. If this template is to be fully effective for readers, it would be good to have something that clearly links the pink highlighting to the "citation needed" tag after it. That said, I acknowledge Codename Lisa's point about leaving touch users in the lurch. -Thibbs (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    Here's a possible solution: add dotted underlining to the normal cn tag as well as all parts of the cn-span tag (i.e. the text as well as the "[citation needed]" flag) and then make everything turn pink on mouseover for emphasis. -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    Please no pink. It's disruptive to the reading experience (mouseovers in text generally are, actually). Either dotted underlines are enough or they're not. If they're not, we shouldn't be considering them. If they are, we shouldn't be considering lighting a page up like a christmas tree as well. Ironholds (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    The pink isn't set in stone. Yes, that's how it's been right from the start; but six months ago Template:Reference necessary was merged in, which had previously styled the enclosed text like this. The border and background can be any colour; the border can be any style, and placed on any one or more of the sides. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    Also, if the template is kept, the disruption to the reading experience would be considered intentional and beneficial. It's obvious that the effects are very noticeable, but the negative effect of upsetting readability is offset by the positive effect of highlighting to reader and editor alike the areas that are not supported by sources. The good that comes from my suggestion (i.e. normally dotted underline that turns into pink background when the "citation needed" tag is moused over) is that it weights the jarring effects more toward the editor. The dotted underline isn't as intrusive for normal reading, but for a reader or editor who is curious about the "citations needed", the jarring pink highlighting lights up the areas of concern. This also partially solves the problem of "touch users", because the dotted underlining would always be present. The pink highlighting would only be a redundant addition. -Thibbs (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    That's a good point. I'd be supportive of dotted underline plus colour-on-mouseover as a way of indicating that the highlighted sentences are linked to 'citation needed'. Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    Keep the color shading, the color isn't important, but extend it to include the superscripted "[Citation needed]". Lentower (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    Hi. Just for clarification: When you said "color isn't important", did you mean you are okay with just any shade of color or did you mean you consider the current color inconspicuous? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    Use of color shading is important. The shade chosen isn't all that important, partly because Wikipedia has a number of skins that use different color palettes, partly because individual's color aesthetics are different. The current color works for me, but others would too. Lentower (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: This template isn't simply redundant - it is detrimental because its highly-intrusive highlighting (which is the only reason for its existence to begin with) could easily scare off users from citing the content instead of simply (eventually) removing it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Depends on how you look at it. It's true that it reduces the professional look of Wikipedia such as it is, and this may turn off readers, but it also provides a reader service by highlighting unverified or challenged claims. The very ugliness that we all recognize can also prompt faster action by editors who watch the page than normal cn-tags that have become so ubiquitous that they are easy for some to ignore. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not talking about a "professional look" or lack thereof. I'm talking about the sensationalism of the highlighting. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh I know. The "professional look" is something I brought up newly. As to the sensationalism, I'm saying that it also acts as a kind of warning to readers so in that sense its sensationalism can be seen as warranted. -Thibbs (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
          • The non-span template is sufficient to warn readers. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I respect your opinion. But the other perspective is at least equally valid. -Thibbs (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep As said above, sometimes is necessary to know exactly which part of a sentence/paragraph requires sourcing.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep As has been said, there are useful cases for the template and the alleged "ugliness" can help affect change, either by getting editors to find references or to remove the dubious claim. We don't worry about casual editors finding "}}" in other templates, so I find it strange that that would be a concern here, especially since rogue "}}" doesn't break an article and can easily be spotted and fixed by more experienced editors. However, improving the clarity of meaning behind the annotation would be helpful if it is unclear to readers. —Ost (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete I wholeheartedly agree that highlighted text which is disputed draws readers out of article. We should remember that Wikipedia is for the readers, not the editors, so drawing extra ettention on top of a citation needed tag is editor-focused. If people want to see what exactly is disputed, how about replacing the pink highlight with some sort of hidden template, or something only visible when editing, where the tagger indicates exactly what needs sourcing, and isn't visible on the main page. Angryapathy (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this comment. The family of "citation needed" templates are strictly for editors, not readers. If we got rid of the highlighting altogether in this template, then editors could still identify the full "span" of the content needing a citation simply by looking at the wikitext. There is no reason to draw so much of the reader's attention to certain words, especially when the average reader will have no idea what the pink highlighting even means. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 19:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Why shouldn't readers know what in an article is referenced and what isn't? Edgepedia (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Highlighting text isn't necessary to inform an interested reader about what is and isn't referenced. If a reader actually cares about references, then they will understand what the footnote numbers mean. If they don't see a footnote number near a particular statement, it's safe to assume that statement isn't referenced. However, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the majority of readers don't care about or notice referencing (I'm not saying it's unimportant, I'm just saying the average reader doesn't care). ‑Scottywong| babble _ 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Why wouldn't the average reader care about the validity or accuracy of Wikipiedia's content? Jarble (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a very useful template. --bender235 (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep It can be used to indicate exactly what part of a sentence needs sourcing, or perhaps it's not just the previous sentence, but the whole paragraph. I don't understand the 'it's only for editors' argument - readers need to know what's referenced and what isn't, especially statements that are disputed. Edgepedia (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I am an editor (and reader, of course!) looking to add a "citation needed" tag to a whole paragraph of text in an article that contains multiple claims that each require some sort of citation. I don't want to put in four "citation needed" tags (which is both ugly and looks kinda rude), I want a single tag that will indicate that the whole paragraph requires attention. I looked over all the cite-needed tags, and selected this as the best match for my intentions. Imagine my surprise at finding out it is being proposed for deletion! I say, "Keep", though I like the proposals above regarding changing the way the tagged text appears to readers and making it more subtle: highlighting in pink seems a bit much, but some indicator of the problematic citation nature of a section of an article seems like a good thing to retain. KDS4444Talk 20:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep
  1. We might be able to make it clearer, but when the highlighted text is immediately followed by the notation, I think it's pretty obvious why it's highlighted.
  2. I have often seen confusion regarding what part of a sentence requires citation.
  3. It is not significantly more difficult to work with.
  4. There might be some value to readers in knowing what part of the sentence is being questioned, but I see the merit in Thumperward's suggestion that the highlighting only appear on mouseover or just making the highlighting more subtle.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge with Template:Citation needed. Per previous nomination by me for merging. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Could the template be modified to highlight the text only when the user hovers over the 'Citation Needed' text? This would eliminate the visual distraction of the pink highlight, while allowing the scope to be determined for those who wish to know. alastairgbrown (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I can see the reasons behind having such a template, for one it makes it easier for editors to see exactly which text is disputed. But in its current form it is ugly, and intrusive. In which case I suggest a modification in which the highlighting is only visible in the EDITING field, rather than on the article itself. Whether this is something that perhaps wikEd could do natively is another option. Osarius - Want a chat? 22:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. As an editor I find this useful for flagging an uncited statement in an otherwise referenced paragraph. Yes, it's intrusive. Yes, it's disruptive. So are many maintenance templates. As a reader, I think I'd find it helpful to know that this statement is not only unreferenced but specifically flagged as such by an editor, which probably means its veracity is questioned. All that being if there's another way to accomplish this I'm open to suggestions. Again, for me the use case is an uncited sentence (or two) in an otherwise referenced paragraph. {{citation needed}} doesn't handle this. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - Just came across this for the first time today as a regular reader and found it highly confusing and counterintuitive: bold highlighting of text is usually used to promote something of high significance; here, it's used to represent something of questionable validity. It gives entirely the wrong impression, it appears to be rarely used (making it prone to misinterpretation) and it's superfluous when we already have a commonly understood alternative. Weirdtheory (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with {{citation needed}} if it wouldn't be too disruptive or something. I like the feature, but would like the option for it to look exactly like the usual fix tag notification to readers, (except maybe a highlight when the mouse moves over the notification,) unless the specific parts are something they are likely to care about. If readers may care about the specific parts, I think I might like different styling, like dotted lines running to the notification, as mentioned somewhere above, but I won't really care about that very much if it doesn't show unless invoked. -PC-XT+ 04:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs more explanation if kept. I also saw this for the first time today, and I would have had no idea what the shading signified if it hadn't been for the "considered for possible deletion" tag preceding it, which led me to this discussion. I can't really see how ordinary readers are expected to understand what it means. 86.148.153.245 (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no doubt that the template serves a purpose; that was never in question. What is in question is how it goes about fulfilling that purpose. The current implementation is highly confusing and intrusive. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as useful in doing precisely what it does, accentuate where the problem lies. And implement suggestion to make highlight only on cursor-over. Also I disliked the commentary of the nominating editor on the template's talkpage that because he feels the discussion there was stale, he should nominate the template for deletion. A stale discussion is a sure sign of a lack of consensus. Debresser (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
If the "cursor-over" proposal is implemented, might I suggest that highlighting is switched on only when the cursor is over the "citation needed" notice, not when it is over the main span of text. That way it will hopefully be clearer what the highlighting relates to (maybe that was always the intention, but I wasn't sure). Passages of text flashing up highlighted when the mouse moves over them are just likely to confuse people. 86.130.67.7 (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with above. This is what I was suggesting up higher, but it's clearer expressed here. -Thibbs (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
No, that wasn't quite what you were suggesting. I'm against any additional sort of notification other than the mouseover - including an always-visible dotted line. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
True. What I mean here is that what 86.130.67.7 describes is a part of my suggestion above and that he's better explained it. I hadn't explained above that the highlighting should only come on when the mouse was over the "[citation needed]" tag instead of just over any of the text. This is what I intended in my suggestion above, but of course my suggestion went further too. -Thibbs (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Also note, though, that I support this part of the suggestion even in isolation from the other parts I'd suggested. Mostly per Scottywong's comment of 28 February (21:44). -Thibbs (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd be agreeable to highlighting that only appears when you mouseover the "citation needed" link. Sounds like a reasonable compromise. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 16:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Come to think of it, if the above is implemented, this template should simply replace the non-span one. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
In theory, the same technique could be used to highlight the span of text that a reference applies to, which is often unclear. However, in practice I wonder if this might create too many maintenance problems. 86.130.67.7 (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - This is the option I wanted. If extra stuff is ever needed for a particular situation, it can be added without making the template do it. I'm only concerned that this template may be more confusing to some editors, or have similar maintenance issues. Otherwise, I'd like one for references, too, per above IP user. -PC-XT+ 02:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete I think the bar of usefulness for any template that disrupts the end user experience of reading an encyclopedia should be very high. This might not be the case if we had a different view mode for "editors" vs "readers". Citation needed templates in general do little to service the reader. If a statement is factually incorrect or dubious, it should be removed, sourced, or edited, not tagged. I realize this argument is more again CN and almost all inline maintenance templates, but as a particularly distracting and disrupting version of these templates, I think this one should probably be an easy call to get rid of. Gigs (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep To address the nominator's points: 1) The meaning of this template is as clear as any other, once you have read the documentation. It would help to extend the color shading to include the super-scripted "[Citation needed]" tag. 2) The existing {{citation needed}} template provides no guidance as to exactly which text needs citations. Providing this information up-front is very useful. 3) It was very clear to me how to use this template, when I found it. Perhaps some editors have more trouble, but that is not a reason to delete a useful template. 4) It's not ugly, and it provides important functions: it informs the reader, that this text is less to be trusted than cited text -- we owe our readers as much clarity as we can provide; if informs editors of exactly what text needs citation support. Lentower (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The fact that "The meaning of this template is as clear as any other, once you have read the documentation" is of no use to most ordinary readers, who will generally not even understand that the highlighting is generated by a template, much less where to look for its documentation. 86.130.67.7 (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
[As it wasn't clear [to at least this editor] that the nominator's point 3) was about use by editors.]
The meaning of this template is much clearer to the reader than {{citation needed}}, as it informs the reader of what text isn't supported by citation. The use of this template by editors, is as clear as any other, once the documentation is read. Lentower (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It is clearer to readers if they realise that the highlighting is connected to the 'citation needed' tag. 86.160.217.172 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Your point was raised earlier in this TfD. The fix suggested there was to extend the color shading to include the 'citation needed' tag. This idea should be evaluated. It would helps those readers who don't realise what the shading, as implemented now, is about.
It's helpful, if editors participating in administrative discussions, read ALL of each one, before commenting. Particularly, if the discussion has gotten long. Lentower (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I have read that suggestion, but my point is still valid. It is dubious to assume that extending the shading will automatically ensure all readers understand what it means. I can virtually guarantee to you that that will not be the case. 86.146.105.171 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It is rare that anything we do here is clear to ALL readers. We need to make choices on what's best for most readers and editors. Keeping this template, and perhaps changing the shading is best for MOST readers and editors. Lentower (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not at all opposed to the concept of marking which section of text a tag applies to, but I think you underestimate the extent to which most ordinary readers will fail to understand what pink-shading-with-no-explanation means. 86.161.61.38 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep The noms belief that readers are not smart enough to figure out what this template means is inaccurate. I use this template on occasion with great success. For example it's current in use at Adam Steltzner. The template makes clear that the cite request is for the date of his attendance at the school. Prior to using this template, people kept adding a cite that he attended the school, but the refs didn't have the date. So by highlighting the date, it is clear what is being requested: a cite for the date. As a result, the article has quieted down. I don't use this template often but when needed it is very helpful. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone said anything about reader intelligence except you. The nominator contends that the meaning of the pink highlighting is non-obvious; I agree. If I see a random half of a paragraph highlighted with "citation needed" at the end, I don't necessarily associate one with the other, particularly when the format is so rare that it may be the only time I've seen it. Your example only shows that specifying date works, not that specifying the text does (and it's also total anecdata). Ironholds (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete or please, tone it down. It calls undue attention to particular citation requests, regardless of urgency.—Machine Elf 1735 08:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with toning it down. I fact, I was in favor of keeping the less obvious now-deleted template with dotted underline. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep The highlighting empowers readers to not-so-passively consume a work-in-progress encyclopedia. (And I'd like to see some user research before unilaterally declaring it unhelpfully distracting or not.) The highlighting's weight is proportional to its cause—unsourced material should be a red flag. I think the design is smart. As a call-out, cnspan is more reflective of how unsourced material should feel to read by design than the small bracked cn. I'd also be in favor of the Debresser/86.130.67.7 hover suggestion above and merging cnspan with cn, for argument's sake. czar · · 09:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I strongly agree. It's funny that after reading through what had become quite a long discussion in a matter of only three days, I found the very last comment in the discussion (at the time of my reading) was the one that most closely tracks my view. We can't simply delete the citation-needed content: other people may come along with better knowlege and fill in the gap. Far from seeming unprofessional, the implication of this kind of markup in a user-edited work is that we want to make it plain that some of what is written is not as strongly supported as it ought to be. Readers--all readers--deserve the honest disclosure that this markup affords. The spanning indication needs to stand out without any need of mouseover. Actually, in response to mouseover, it might be useful for the template to display in a title= text a short message explaining the funny looking markup. NoOneAsked (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. In my opinion, this template is very useful, also from a reader's point of view. The usual teaching at schools, universities and media is that Wikipedia could not be trusted, as it's not a professional piece of work. Therefore (that is, per WP:OR) it is so important to properly cite the sources, so that the reader can find where the information provided in a Wikipedia article comes from, which might lead him/her to trust in the authenticity of whatever he/she is about to extract out of it for his /her own purposes. But this implies that it is equally important to point out what parts of an article are lacking a source. The span-template is needed to identify exactly which passage is unreferenced. There are situations where [citation needed] is just not sufficient, as it's only referring to a point. For a job well done it must be possible to flag whole groups of words (ranging from subordinate clauses to anything shorter than a section). I also think that the current shape of this template (the highlighting of the text, or rather, the low-lighting by the light grey script color) is very useful. It should be quite intuitive for a reader that the faint appearence indicates that there is an issue with the respective passage. --FoxyOrange (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep The template aids in immediately conveying which part of a sentence requires a citation, when it would otherwise be vague. A case in point is an article which I just added this template to, Oka Crisis#Crisis. The only disputed part of the sentence is the two highlighted words, and nothing else; using the regular tag would lead a reader to believe that everything in the sentence up to the tag was being referred to. I hope that we will resolve this soon, as the large deletion discussion message being attached to every use of the template is very ugly. Shirudo talk 10:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE. As a long-time editor, I have never used the template, nor have I had reason to use something other than the citation needed template. If clarity about what text needs a citation is desired, that can easily be put on the article's talk page, which is where it belongs. Recently, there seems to be a proliferation of templates that confuse our readers and attempt to replace discussion that should correctly take place on the talk page, just to make it easier for Wikipedia editors. As many have noted, the pink confuses our readers. Let's all remember that the goal of Wikipedia is to satisfy our readers, not our editors. For these reasons, I strongly urge that this template be deleted, and that the simpler citation needed template be used. Truthanado (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am aware of cases where a simple Citation needed is confusing. The only issue I am sensible with is the fact that the tag attracts attention to dubious statements. This has to be fixable though; even Citation needed doesn't use red. But this is grounds for a discussion, not deletion when there is no equivalent. --Chealer (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - It is very useful to me as draws more attention to the problem. United States Man (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. As a reader and as an editor, it is essential to me to know exactly what material is being challenged. Specification of the span via this template is a useful way to clearly define the items that require clarification. For readability's sake, though, I am open to some of the suggestions listed above that allow for mouseover/hover highlighting instead of a constant highlight. Omgee (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it is useful as in some cases the original citation can be ambiguous as to which sentence(s) it refers to. I like the idea of it highlighting or underlining text with a mouseover, whic would stop it from being intrusive.TornadoLGS (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Disagree that the tag isn't linked as it appears immediately following the marked section. Unless a new way is found to highlight specific problematic paragraphs there's no easy way to call out problematic content that's more than a sentence and less than a section or article. Useful to readers because it keeps them from taking an entire article uncritically and useful to editors because it gives focus on high-priority items to fix. vsync (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Without this template, a (inline) list where some need citations and some already have them can get quite busy. For example, see Delta Air Lines#Sponsorships (second item on the list). I originally added a separate {{cn}} for each item and it got very busy, while just having a {{cn span}} keeps it cleaner (at least if the deletion notice wasn't there):Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC 03:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete It does seem as though the highlighted text could be somewhat confusing to new editors and the talk page could be used to clear up any confusion as to what parts of the sentence or sentences marked by a citation needed template need to be cited so I don't see what benefits this template brings over the traditional one. Maybe if we could make it so the text would only be highlighted when you move your mouse over the "citation needed" box thingy so that way it wouldn't bring too much attention to the disputed text. I Feel Tired (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as visible Calling attention to the disputed text is not a bad thing. Let's note that "citation needed" is already non-obvious to new readers. If they click on "citation needed", it explains, and that explanation can be expanded to mention the pink (or whatever form we use). --192.75.48.150 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep and fix the understanding of those editors for whom meaning of the pink highlighting is not clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are two points being discussed; what the template does and how the template displays. The span is more precise. It identifies the specific words that are in question and not just the general area that is questionable. I don't think the other template is clear enough about the extent of the needed citation. The span clarifies whether a sentence needs addtional reference or an entire paragraph or just a critical detail. For example, a current event article may have questionable text that future edits may improve; quotes about the event, although correctly secondary sourced, may have more reputable secondary sources in the future; numbers related to an event may change; the general content may stay the same but the details may change. The editor of the article may know what the debatable content is but not start a talk page about it because the editor doesn't know enough about the content to even ask the right questions on the talk page or, maybe, how to start a talk page. The display highlighting is good because it brings attention to something that should have attention brought to, namely what exactly is questionable. Conveying what is questionable about details is a benefit to the reader. It adds to the reputability and usefulness of an article by easily showing the limits of what is debatable. The style could be dark grey color text to subtly show what might be questionable.BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete It is really ugly, and as a reader it draws too much attention to parts of the text that may not be of any real significance (less familiar readers may perceive it as an important part of the text). However, it is useful... I was thinking if we could instead implement am addition to the template so that the text is only highlighted when the [citation needed] is hovered over by the mouse. This makes it less obtrusive and is still useful to the reader. Tigernose (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this is a viable compromise that I'm agreeable to. I would encourage the closing admin to consider this alternative to a binary keep/delete outcome, and evaluate whether there is a consensus to modify the template such that it only displays the highlighting when the "citation needed" text is moused over. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 17:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe it helps highlight what in specific needs sourcing, which is useful in sentences with multiple clauses. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Convert to mouseover as suggested by Tigernose. As-is, this is a truly horrific template that makes the pages it's used on some kind of ugly. Being able to hover over the "cn" bit and have it highlight what needs to be sourced would be dange useful, though. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • keep, but consider changing the presentation to a {{tooltip}} or something else, as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
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 NeverwinterPW[edit]

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NeverwinterPW (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Largely content which falls on the wrong side of WP:GAMEGUIDE. Also seems abandoned. Has a very low usage (4 or 5 uses, at my count). Would prefer deletion without replacement, because I'm not sure of a template which would suitably replace this one. Izno (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete, encourages guide-y content; any remaining critical info can be conveyed in prose. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not obvious that any of this material belongs in a Wikipedia infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Good point about replacement. If these fields were important to an article about a game, they'd be in {{Infobox video game}}. Osarius - Want a chat? 22:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
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.