Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:TFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.
 
WikiProject Templates
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Templates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Templates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Closure decisions[edit]

I'm increasingly concerned that many TfD/TfM dsicussions ae being closed based on the number of "votes", rather than an anlysis of the merits of the points raised (and as as secondary issue, that many people "vote", but do not then linger to discuss any points arising). How might we address this, to the benefit of the project? I'm aware that the workload is high and we rely on a small number of volunteers to carry out this unrewarding task. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This, I regret to say, is a WP wide phenomenon.
  • I have seen AfDs where part way through the discussion all the delete points have been addressed, still closed as "delete per consensus".
  • Also I have seen people voting for deletion of redirects on the basis that it "increases my workload".
I am inclined to think that more time needs to be spent on closure. The way to achieve this is through training and increasing the resource available to close - which really means more admins.
I believe we have got into a vicious circle where admins are making bad decisions, so we are tightening the "requirements" for admins, resulting in less admins, more time pressure, more bad decisions.
It may be partly the perception of "workload" too. No one has a workload, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY (unless you are in an arb case Face-smile.svg)>
All the best: Rich Farmbrough13:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
A separate issue is that templates are way more complicated since sometimes the discussion turns on a particular use or parameter of the template and it's almost easier to delete the whole thing than come up with revisions that way. -- 22:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

LUA modules[edit]

I think that TfD should be expanded to cover deletion/mergers/discussions/renames of [[module:]] namespace -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Modules seem similar to templates in their use, and in the content often being opaque to non-programmers. I would add that translations of templates to modules should also discussed at TfD in addition to the template's talk page. In general, I support this, but would like to see more comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @65: This might not be a good time to start an RfC without any prior discussion because another IP recently started 15 similar RfCs, which have been reverted (see WP:ANI#Numerous (mostly unnecessary) RFC's opened by IP). Regarding the issue: the general principle is that we don't look for a solution unless a problem is first identified. Has there been any trouble with modules that needs resolution? I see that WP:MFD includes "Module:" in its scope. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I really don't see how those RfCs are similar to this, as this is a proposal to change the the purview of this deletion process, and necessarily will require an RfC to implement. The RfCs you point out are about changing article content, which can be handled through WP:BOLD editing. Changing the policy backing this deletion process isn't a BOLD process. As modules are used as the back end to templates, and as replacements for template coding, they would seem to be logically suited for TfD, and not MfD. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not now. There have only been 4 modules ever MfD'd, and none of those were "real" nominations (they were all G7/G8 speedy requests). If we ever get modules start to be discussed for deletion, then we can think about this, but there's no reason to now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Why wait? Powers T 20:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are almost always disregarded.Forbidden User (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support concept as a seemingly-non-controversial idea that if it WP:QUACKs like a template, it should be deleted like one. However, given the fact that it's obviously at least slightly controversial and the apparent lack of need, I'm okay with keeping things the way they are. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Note This user is probably neutral.Forbidden User (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that "we don't look for a solution unless a problem is first identified". We don't make pre-emptive measures generally. Besides, there are so few deletions that necessitated MfDs that I don't think we even need a RfC on it. If you insist, I'd say that in a Template for discussion, talking about a module would be rather irrelevant (or ridiculous). I don't see any problem with the current system.Forbidden User (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Notices for templates in the holding cell[edit]

I think we should insert some of template:being deleted into the templates themselves. For an article or category that has been voted delete (or merge really), it's clear to people who view the article or category that's what happening. However, for a template, the only visability comes if someone goes to the documentation of the template itself. For example, Template:Infobox NFL coach has been set for merger since October 2012 with no indication that's it's being removed (since it's being updated). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to a key templates for discussion template[edit]

Template talk:Template for discussion#User-unfriendly Wiki abbreviations appearing in articles. Thank you, Ego White Tray (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment: WP:NENAN[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:SNOW close. There is clear consensus to trust the discretion of the closing with the decision on whether NENAN applies as part of the argument to delete. However, as is an essay, editor should be wary of using it as the sole reasons to nominate templates for deletion, especially en-masse, and are reminded that citing actual policies for your actions is highly recommended. Closing this now as it has degraded into a pit of name calling and other uncivil behaviour by some editors, and I highly doubt anything will be gained by keeping this open. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Up to now the essay WP:NENAN (Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox) was used as a valid argument for the nomination of templates at WP:Templates for discussion. It was used more than 450 times in that way.

Recently, after a string of nomination based on WP:NENAN, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft objected to this.

In short there are two questions:
1) Is Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox a valid argument for nomination of a template?
2) Is the threshold of five valid blue links, created in practise over time, a valid and reasonably threshold for the minimum number of valid links?

Yours sincerely, The Banner talk 21:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Reading the essay it is clearly a biased and opinionated piece and I am surprised it was given the time of day in previous debates, it certainly gives an I dont like it approach. A lot of articles have these navboxes as part of an established series or scheme like the articles related to aircraft companies and military campaigns hence the opposition to The Banner's mass nomination of such navboxes by projects. As for the arbitary delete it if it hasnt got five related articles it is clearly a daft idea when the navbox is part of a series. So although the navbox may have few links it may be part of a bigger scheme. Despite the claim that it declares a threshold of "five valid blue links" the essay doesnt mention links only how many articles the navbox is used on, in the example of the aircraft company navboxes then it clould be said the series or scheme is used on thousands of articles. So really WP:NENAM needs to be kicked into the long grass and if any templates/navboxes offend other users and they are not part of a series they can be nominated and discussed at TfD. MilborneOne (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 1) Not on its own as the sole rationale. Some matters are delegated to the WikiProjects, in the absence of wider consensus. WP:NENAN is merely an essay, and WikiProject Aviation's Consensus, while it is local consensus, is indeed consensus, and consensus is WP:POLICY. From WP:CONLIMITED: "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." As long as the WikiProject's consensus is not contradicted by a community consensus policy or guideline on a wider scale, they are free to arrive at such a consensus. Using the WP:NENAN essay as the sole rationale for TfD nomination would be improper in that situation.
2) No. As I said in the WikiProject Aircraft discussion linked above, while it may be counter-intuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, that project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, by other projects), they are something more than merely navigation templates. Either that or we need to more precisely define what a "navbox" is and is not. Mojoworker (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NENAN is just an essay, is not well-written or thought out, is not a policy or a guideline and does not enjoy widespread support on Wikipedia. Thus it should never be used as the basis for deleting a template. It has already been supplanted by consensus in at least one case at WikiProject Aircraft. It is also contradicted by other essays like WP:ANOEP, which is why we rely on consensus and not warring essays. Furthermore this essay is contradicted by an accepted guideline WP:REDNOT in that WP:NENAN says "A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the "rule of five", whereas WP:REDNOT says "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as {{Main}} or {{Further}}, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, etc." Clearly where an essay is not consistent with an accepted community guideline the essay should be set aside or better yet, deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This essay should not be publically readable, it is clearly the opinion of a single editor (no link was given to any discussion on creation), other editors listed in the history have only copy edited it (adding 'en dashes', bless). The main problem is that is it is being confused as a policy and used as a forceful weapon for navbox deletion (450 templates already apparently). It should be deleted or sent back to user space, whatever you do with editor opinion essays. Many essays on WP are good and have useful advice from wise editors, this one is not in that league. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No to both questions. I see no harm in WP:NENAN remaining an essay but it's that, an essay. It's not policy. It's never been reconciled with our other policies. It's not even being interpreted correctly. "Not everything needs a navbox" isn't the same concept as "Not all articles need a navbox." There's a lot of language in WP:NENAN about too many templates cluttering up the bottom of articles. That's a real phenomenon. If that's what you're up against, then culling low-use templates might make sense. Using it as justification for deleting the only navbox an article has? That's a different proposition, one which the essay doesn't consider. Which is fine--it's an essay. No more, no less. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • To start with the general, before moving to the specific. An essay is one (usually) editor's interpretation of how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply to some aspect of Wikipedia written into a opinion piece.
The weight of argument in an essay gets its power from the policies and guidelines, but only provided it is a valid interpretation of those guidelines and policies. If the essay misinterprets, extrapolates, or runs counter to consensus (established practice) then it has less validity.
Giving an essay as a reason for doing something, is a shorthand for specific policies/guidelines mentioned in the essay. The same thing happens with wikiproject guidelines. But when dealing with a cross-Wikipedia group who are not au fait with a project's common terminology and history of discussion, it is better to cite the central guidelines rather than project's ones (being a subset of an application of those guidelines)
When assessing a discussion where an essay is given as a reason, the assessment should be on the strength of the application of the policy or guideline within the essay, not whether an essay exists, or how often it has been cited. An essay could contain one valid point based on a guideline relevant to the discussion and three invalid ones. If that valid point carries the day, it is that point and not the essay as a whole.
More specifically, Wikipedia's own warning on essays is "Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
Now to NENAN. The opening statement of the essay says "In moderation, they are a good thing." And the point that is expressed throughout the article is not to create navbox templates where they are unnecessary. The essayist does not make any claim to base this on any policy or guidelines. It does link to three other essays. We are expected to take the general principle as self-evident or on faith.
There are three - and not necessarily related - issues expressed by the author in NENAN.
  1. The first element expressed is that there are other ways to link between related articles than using a navbox.
  2. The middle element is creating a navbox containing non-notable articles (and they may be redlinks), or in the expectation that the future will bring notable events, or things, to be added to the navbox.
  3. The clearest is to avoid template creep ("template pileup", I'd call it) where the bottom of the article is a pile of templates. This might be good reason to find a template superfluous to other templates.
So in answer to part one of the question. An issue identified in NENAN might be applicable to a template discussion. However discussions should cite policy or guideline, and so NENAN of itself does not carry much (if any) weight in any discussion if a policy or guideline is validly given in opposition. Further when giving NENAN (or anything else covering multiple issues) as a reason to delete, it is courteous (and important to keep discussion focused) to actually state which of the three (in this case) issues applies to the deletion discussion. It makes it easier for another editor to respond or an admin to assess the interpretation. (also this)
For the second part of the question (and you'll be glad that my opinion is much shorter) - the "rule of five" is described in the essay as "A good, but not set-in-stone rule" and that "common sense and consensus should prevail". So as a rule of thumb it has some value but cannot be held to apply in general, and each case must ultimately be deliberated specifically. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No and no:
i) Many navboxes are actually more than just navboxes. In terms of structure (semantics), content and style, the raw navbox is just a stylistically grouped set of links. But where a navbox is part of a set providing uniform formatting across multiple articles, the navbox is performing a strong semantic function as well and, in the case of say lists of aircraft by a single manufacturer, there can be a significant content element as well. NENAN has no depth in dealing with this wider context and is wholly the wrong tool to bring to bear on them.
2) No fixed rule is appropriate, it depends heavily on circumstance. If the box is purely for navigation then five is a reasonable rule of thumb - I wouldn't go so far as to say guideline. But the decision - and the strictness or otherwise with which it is to be applied - have to be down to the wikiproject who thrash out the wider context.
Having said that, I do believe that the writer has a point about template creep, and that needs to be addressed more vigorously elsewhere (perhaps it already is?).
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I basically think this is opinion, and is as valid as any opinion, but it should not outweigh other opinions or otherwise be enforced by deletion without consensus, policy, or guidelines backing it. In answer to the questions,
1) Sometimes, maybe, I suppose. In my opinion, Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox is a valid argument for nomination of a small template that is cluttering the bottom of a page without new articles being created, or either of the other "rules fail", but this is a casual usage that really means the author failed to take into account the things in this essay before creating the template, and not that it should be deleted by authority of the essay's "rules." By itself, NENAN cannot qualify templates for deletion much more than WP:I DON'T LIKE IT, but it often shows problems with premature navbox creation that have weight. I very rarely use this essay in my !votes, but would not want to restrict others from using it, though I do have concerns. For instance, new, well-meaning editors sometimes mistake the casual usage as a deletion test and start nominating or !voting down any templates that "fail" NENAN, ending up surprised with a load of backlash. Too many templates are nominated per NENAN without any real problem being caused by the template. NENAN is too often used to delete, rather than to encourage thought before making a navbox. Authors who make the navbox first, to use in the article creation process, may become discouraged when their navbox is nominated prematurely. Any other essay, such as WP:A navbox on every page, should have the same validity and possible usage, with weight gained by support from policy and guidelines. Since, in theory, TfD is for discussion rather than deletion, such casual usage may be ok, but I would still prefer a clearer nomination, more like, "Apparently abandoned by author who probably didn't read WP:NENAN," though giving the actual issue(s), as User:GraemeLeggett pointed out, would be better.
2) Generally. I believe that the threshold of five valid blue links, is a valid and reasonable threshold for the minimum number of valid links before creating a navbox, generally speaking. I also believe more or less may be reasonable, depending on the circumstances, such as the way the template is used and maintained. (I have italicized valid to avoid confusion with the other use of the word in the same sentence, which I copied from the above question. I'll also say that my definition of valid blue link is slightly different from that set forth in the essay, though the essay count is usually a good estimate.)
There have been previous discussions about the general use of NENAN in deletion. As far as I know, no consensus was reached to encourage or discourage this usage, and the debate continues. I believe the largest discussion I have previously participated in was a proposal to turn NENAN into CSD T4, which contains some material pertinent to this discussion. In summary, I don't think NENAN should be used as a hard rule, enforced by deletion, but rather a suggestion for template creators. I do not want to restrict usage in nominations in deletion of (abandoned) templates which appear to have been created presumptuously other than to avoid problems associated with unclear casual usage. —PC-XT+ 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Even when WP:NENAN is hanged, drawn and quartered, it will have limited effect on the treatment of templates. In my opinion it is a nice short moniker for You should only create navigation templates when you have serious content to navigate between and you can not solve it with normal wiki-linking. You can not navigate between red links. You can not navigate between one article. Creating a complete navigation template to navigate between two, three or four articles takes far more time than it would take to create a few wiki-links. The risk of loosing your way is almost non-existing.
  • ad 1: The use of the WP:NENAN-argument over the years (more than 450 times) showed that there was a practical consensus that WP:NENAN. Why that needs to be crushed by a local consensus that sees their cosy empire under scrutiny, is a mystery to me.
  • ad 2: The number of links needed by WP:NENAN (again: a common ground found in practical use) is not uncontested. I can certainly agree with a lower number. But a tiny glitch is the fact that templates are designed to be used multiple times. Usually the number of five crops up, but in practice you see many templates used in only three articles. As it is not useful to mention articles in a navigation template without adding the navigation template to it (in that case the navigation will fail) those numbers are intertwined. The Banner talk 18:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I am surprised that in an RFC that The Banner has to resort to attacking those that that oppose him with terminology like "cosy empire", the so called "cosy empire" has come to a long standing consensus to use aircraft manufacturer navboxes on all aircraft articles to replace a "local" see also template that came under criticism during article quality reviews. It appears the main point that those that want to delete this series of aircraft company nav boxes appear to miss is they are part of a series across similar articles, similar series are also used in articles related to military history. NENAN was created as shorthand by one user who then used it mainly to show that the template had "not enough" links, clearly a lot of the discussion where NENAN was mentioned the article would have been deleted anyhow and I dont have a problem with the idea that stand-alone navboxes with only a few links and no obvious aid to navigation would be deleted as they are in most discussions. If NENAN was not just an opinion essay and all the aircraft company nav boxes with less than five links had to be returned to the see also section it would not help the user experience moving between similar articles. We are here to make wikipedia easier to use and this series and ones like it are here to make that experience easier. MilborneOne (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You can present is as a one-man-affair but the fact is that it was used as argument or mentioned at least 450 times of the TfD-pages. And your "series across similar articles" is just an attempt to avoid individual scrutiny of templates. As every article is judged on it own merits, the same applies to templates. Even as part of a bigger series, a template has to be useful in the opinion of the community what can be at odd with a WikiProject. The Banner talk 10:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
From a quick look at some early instances of the use of NENAN in TfD, the citer (if that's the word?) of NENAN as an argument for deletion was the author of NENAN. eg Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_3. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
And? It also mentioned that there were just two links in the template under discussion and that template was removed. (The argument was also mentioned in another discussion on that page. A template with just four links. Template removed.) The Banner talk 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
On User:The Banner's first comment above, WP:CLNT is the relevant guideline, which trumps the NENAN opinion piece. It lists a number of advantages, including consistency across articles, information value and better organization than "See also". There is no stipulation on minimum size. AFAIK the Wikiproject local policy conforms to CLNT. On their second comment, a million bad decisions in the past do not negate getting it right the next time round - there's a policy/guideline around somewhere for that as well. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
And? A template with one or two links is still useless as navigation template, with or without WP:NENAN. The Banner talk 12:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
These navboxes function as a list of aircraft manufactured by the company in question, so the content is useful even if there is no link. Redlinks point to articles that have yet to be written. The consensus of wikiproject aviation (as I understand it) is that the 'see also' section is to be used for comparable aircraft by other manufacturers.TheLongTone (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I thought this was a Request for Comment on WP:NENAN, not a vigourous defence of it, in which case please let people comment freely. - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It it is not to be defended, why do you guys attack is vigorously? The Banner talk 14:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are you revert-warring without discussion on WP:NENAN itself (e.g. [1] [2] over the phrase "As with all policy and style suggestions, common sense and consensus should prevail." I haven't seen that concept discussed here, except that a fair number of us do think the way WP:NENAN has been invoked by you (and others) runs counter to other polices. Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are you guys trying to chance the content of an essay that is currently under discussion? The Banner talk 22:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The editor adding to the essay is not a member of the aircraft project to my knowledge (or is a very recent member) so is not one of 'us guys'. They had something valid to add, it didn't need referencing as it is just an essay. Totally entitled to do that, reverting the edit appeared to be protecting the essay's 'hard and fast rules'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am not a member of Wikiproject:aircraft. The essay WP:NENAN explicitly states that the "rule of five" is not "set-in-stone". The comment I added did not substantially change the meaning of the essay. Even Wikipedia:Guidelines has a similar statement that calls for common sense and consensus when enforcing the policies and guidelines. Further, if WP:NENAN is going to a guideline by which content decisions are made, then it is subject to editing by the community to reflect consensus. Asking for the author's "permission" to edit it should not be necessary, per "WP:Own". If it is to to strictly reflect the author's opinion, then cannot be cited as a sole rational for deletion against consensus. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It probably bears noting here that admin closures of most of the WikiProject Aircraft templates nominated for deletion under WP:NENAN has now been completed and none have been deleted, de facto showing that WP:NENAN holds no weight at TfD, when opposed by consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Closure as no consensus is something different than a clear keep. It just shows that neither my arguments nor your/the Wikiprojects arguments could convince the closing administrator as a way to act. In fact, the closing administrator has effectively thrown out the Wikiproject's consensus... The Banner talk 22:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Ow, and it looks like he is keeping everything with four links or more, regardless what type of link. The Banner talk 23:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the 450 articles deleted using the "WP:NENAN" rational, most of these deletion choices were uncontested, and the templates deleted were of low quality. Per "WP:Snow", even if "WP:NENAN" were inappropriate for a deletion criteria, the deletion themselves were obvious and uncontroversial, and there was no need to dig up a better policy as a formal reason for the deletion. Thus to attribute these deletions solely to "WP:NENAN" is somewhat misleading; the lack of five articles in these templates was but one quality issue among many. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Negative on the 'four article threshold', only two 'relevant' links here. Time to drop the stick? What you have done recently by distracting project members for a good few weeks is deflect them from improving articles and combating vandalism amongst other things which is thoroughly lamentable. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"In fact, the closing administrator has effectively thrown out the Wikiproject's consensus" - no the closing admin is closing on consensus and keeping all of them through "keep" or "no consensus" to delete. The "no consensus" just means there was at least one dissenting voice in the debate, but it amounts to a keep anyway. As you can see the closing admin ignored WP:NENAN completely, which he should as it is just an essay and carries no weight at TfD, otherwise all would have been "deletes" regardless of consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You are funny, but you did not understand what happened there. The administrator is not counting votes, he is balancing arguments. By closing so many templates as "no consensus", he tells the community that the the consensus reached on the WikiProject did not convince him enough to keep the template. And with that, has thrown out that consensus as a good argument. The Banner talk 00:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
But the templates remain, they are kept, as they were before you nominated them for deletion. An English expression is 'talking the hind leg off a donkey'. I wish you well with your future deletion efforts but next time pick on a project that does not care about its content. Goodbye. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Some of them are kept, most are closed as "no consensus" with both parties failing to convince the closing administrator. And when the WikiProject really cared about its templates, it would have tried to protect it with content-creation to match, when possible, the requested five relevant links. Just because that is a less risky approach. The Banner talk 00:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe the process followed here precluded any possible consensus to keep or delete from the wider Wikipedia community. A single user nominated dozens or hundreds of templates for deletion based on a single argument; dozens of involved editors responded by contesting the deletions, copying arguments from one to the next. There was no space for an uninvolved editor to be heard. He or she would be drowned by the tedious need to respond each individual template. Thus, closing as "no consensus" to delete is a fair outcome based on the process used. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You show little faith in the qualities of the closing administrator. He would see quickly enough that every template had the same keep-voters with the same arguments. And the hundreds of templates nominated, are in fact just 29. The Banner talk 00:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I did not question the administrator's ability to judge the arguments; far from it, I discerned that he wisely chose to close most under "no consensus" specifically because the process did allow easy participation by anyone who strongly agreed with the need to delete. Why bother voicing dissent when there is not a WP:Snowball's chance that the templates would be deleted following the piecemeal approached used. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have chosen to stay on the fringes of this debate, and did not count the exact number. I am not a member of Wikiproject:Aircraft, or any wikiproject for that matter. I have offered tempered outside observations to improve the tone of the debate. My statement was "dozens or hundreds" which was perfectly congruent with the actual number that you gave. That you choose to single out this statement suggests a possible personal grudge on your part. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have the highest respect for Plastikspork's judgement. That he closed these discussions keep or no consensus without reference to WP:NENAN suggests that he saw these discussions as strict headcounts. That's entirely within his discretion; any administrator confronted by a discussion where no polices are cited is obliged to do the same. That's how consensus works. If WP:NENAN were policy no amount of shouting by WP:AVIATION or whomever would have been enough to save these templates. Mackensen (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have respect for his judgement too. I believe that "no consensus" is fair, not because he was overwhelmed, but any one who
Consensus on Wikipedia is never a strict vote count, but based on a congruence of opinion involved and uninvolved editors. As mostly involved editors participated, "no consensus" to delete was fair. While I suspect that wider opinion would be in favor of keeping rather than deleting, this was not definitively shown. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Your inability to understand what happened here doesn't change reality. You nominated these templates for deletion. If all you had to do was invoke WP:NENAN to overrule any consensus then they would have all been deleted, but they have all been kept. WP:NENAN had no force of effect, it has thus been discredited. Because WP:NENAN failed to overrule, then it next fell to you to create a consensus to delete the templates, which you failed to do. That is what "no consensus" means in this context, that you failed to rally the needed consensus to delete them and the default is therefore to keep them. It is really time for you to drop the stick, WP:NENAN, like the horse, is done as an argument for deletion, overruled by consensus instead. Ahunt (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Your inability to understand what happened here doesn't change reality. Yes, I nominated based on WP:NENAN. That argument failed to convince the closing administrator. But you defended the templates with a consensus reached at a WikiProject. That consensus also failed to convince the closing administrator. Just accept that. Neither of us has won because neither of us succeeded in convincing the closing administrator. So nothing will change until this RfC closes. The Banner talk 05:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You know if you could just accept that nominating these templates against consensus on the basis of a poorly supported essay was a bad idea, apologize and promise not to do it again, you could probably avoid sanctions out of all this, but your steadfast belief that you are right on this issue even after you have lost badly is not going to result in a good outcome for you. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
My friend, even the closing administrator found the consensus on WikiProject Aircraft not convincing enough to act upon. In fact, that consensus was ignored as not important enough. The Banner talk 20:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be very interested to hear how you come to that conclusion.TheLongTone (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Easy: an administrator is not counting votes but is balancing arguments. The fact that so many nominated templates are kept as "no consensus" means that the administrator was not convinced by the arguments to delete nor convinced by the arguments (in this case the local consensus) to keep it outright. The Banner talk 11:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You are clearly in denial about the fact that your reason for deleting thes templates has been found unconvincing.TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not. I know quite well that my argument (WP:NENAN) was deemed not convincing by the closing administrator. But I am very aware and you are clearly in denial that the local consensus of WikiProject Aircraft was also deemed not convincing. I would be nice when you guys start to accept that. The Banner talk 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You haven't provided any evidence for your assertions and clearly you are the only one here who believes that. Please explain your logic. - Ahunt (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, mr. Hunt, stop this ostrich-play and accept the reality. You are playing a severe case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and it is getting annoying and disruptive. The Banner talk 01:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay I note that you have no evidence or reasons for that. Thank you for clarifying that. - Ahunt (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As an admin with no particular dog in this fight, the answers to your two questions are no and no. WP:NENAN is an opinionated essay that does not even attempt to justify its claims by citing Wikipedia policy. (At least WP:NBFILL tries to provide some data for its claims, even if I don't necessarily agree to it.) As such, I do not find it a very persuasive argument for deletion. While a local consensus may develop at TFD for deleting one or two templates based on the essay, all that means is that nobody had a good enough reason to keep the template, not that WP:NENAN is a good reason to get rid of something. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm with Titoxd on this - uninvolved administrator who has no particular interest in this fight. What I want to add to the above is that the original draft of the WP:NENAN essay is now four years old and we've added another 1.3 million articles in that time, as Wikipedia continues to grow and people use newer devices (smartphones, tablets etc) to access the site, some of these older essays become less relevant and navigation aides like navigation boxes become more useful than they might have been in the past. Nick (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:NENAN is not a valid argument because it is no more a mandated policy then WP:ANOEP. We cannot make hard and fast rules about there having to be 5 links. There will always be exceptions. Op47 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Template:MGMT SUMMARY[edit]

I had {{MGMT SUMMARY}} speedy deleted as a test, and it was then recreated with a {{Being deleted}} tag that I believe to be incorrect, probably copied from another template awaiting merge. Does anybody know anything about it? I posted on the user's talk page to try to explain they can use userspace to make test templates. —PC-XT+ 04:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I remember, I believe the speedy deleted template had the following content (in nowiki tags): {{MGMT SUMMARY | birth = 1 | death = 2 }} —PC-XT+ 05:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)