Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:14, 16 March 2015

< March 15	March 17 >

March 16

Template:ColumbiaRiverGeobox

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

as per Template:St. Johns River geobox, propose merging this back with the article. the convention is to not split the infobox/geobox from the article. the solution would be to move it to article space, merge the contents, and then redirect to preserve attribution. WOSlinker (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom's solution per precedent —PC-XT+ 22:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox bus station

Template:Infobox bus station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Entirely redundant to {{Infobox station}}, which is meant to be used for "rail, tram, bus and intermodal transport stations". Alakzi (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What I said before! Parameters were previously added for compatability. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St. Johns River geobox

Template:St. Johns River geobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

propose merging this back with the article. the convention is to not split the infobox/geobox from the article. the solution would be to move it to article space, merge the contents, and then redirect to preserve attribution. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subst: and delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom's solution per precedent —PC-XT+ 22:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RMcontested

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

The template has not been used since 2008. Newer procedures for converting technical page move requests to controversial requests to be discussed have been implemented. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Smoothing the transition from technical to contested requests for background and analysis. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. All that info does not belong in an infobox. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sydney public transport

Template:Infobox Sydney public transport (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox rail line}} or {{Infobox water transit}}. We don't need separate infoboxes for each city's public transport systems. Alakzi (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maintained

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

This template is all sorts of trouble. Though it claims it doesn't imply page ownership, it really does. It doesn't have much of a positive use, and if an editor truly needs assistance they can use the page history, not this ownership implying tag. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the interests of full disclosure, you should put in the links to the three previous TfDs this template has survived. As well as the now-closed spurious AN/I thread that started this, a thread which demonstrated beyond all doubt. that the problem was with one editor, not the template. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the above reasons; and because the template can't be relied on: the editor listed by it for Ronald Reagan hasn't edited for over a year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reason to delete the template from the page, not delete the template. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No; the impossibility of keeping such templates up to date is another reason to never use them; hence delete them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that were so, we might as well delete all our page maintenance templates. Laziness is not an excuse for misapplying policy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - A slippery-slope-fallacy argument, with a "laziness" straw-man-fallacy thrown in. Meanwhile the "maintainer" who placed the nominated template on Talk:16th-century philosophy hasn't edited for two and a half years, yet no-one has updated or removed it. It's a chocolate teapot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any great value in this template, but I do see potential ownership problems (whatever the template says). When people, especially newcomers, see editors named in the template they're inevitably going to see them as experts who are expected to be consulted. If you want to help others with a specific article, all you need to do is watchlist the talk page and jump in and help when anyone asks. You don't need to be named explicitly in a template. (And as Andy Mabbett suggests, people will surely waste time chasing up outdated templates.) Squinge (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- " When people, especially newcomers, see editors named in the template they're inevitably going to see them as experts who are expected to be consulted." Do you have any evidence that this is what happens? As for the rest of your argument, see my keep vote below. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a good starting point for some editors, some of them new. If they have questions or concerns about an article, they have an individual editor to go to, rather than take a shot in the dark. In my experience, the template only "implies ownership" to those who have a habit of establishing ownership over articles, and the editor listed is a threat to them. If ownership becomes a problem with an editor listed in the template, it can be dealt with at the appropriate noticeboard. As a community, we are to take responsibility for how we edit or "maintain" an article and encourage editors to do the same. I fail to see how having editors taking responsibility and being a go-to person is a bad thing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How can it not imply page ownership? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the template specifically says, "This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute." Besides, templates are inanimate things and actions/ideations of ownership can only come from an editor. If an editor is signing up to be a page maintainer for the wrong reasons, that will become clear and the problem dealt with appropriately. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a comment underneath a comment by User:Winkelvi. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Getting point-y won't work. Especially when you either don't have a point (actually, you do but if you wore a hat no one would notice) or didn't make it. Or both. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please understand what WP:POINT says - and means - and do not misapply it, as you have done here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I overestimated you when I interpreted your cutesiness as an attempt at a counterargument. I should not have interpreted it as an actual attempt to make a point. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WV. Just because a few people misuse the template does not mean it should be deleted. Handle the troublemakers instead. I'm the primary editor on many lemur articles, and this template helps readers and newer editors get in touch with me when they have questions about sources or want information about other lemurs I haven't had time to write about. The article Small-toothed sportive lemur wouldn't be a FA if it wasn't for this template. Someone apparently saw this template on another lemur article, wrote to me to inquire about this obscure lemur, and that gave me a reason to write up the article. This template is not only applicable to articles primarily written (and fully developed) by a single writer, but can also be used by multiple individuals on collaborative projects. Let's stop focusing on the negative and blaming the template for bad editor behavior. The text of the template quite clearly states its purpose. – Maky ^« talk » 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Just because the template says that it isn't meant to assert article ownership doesn't mean that the real purpose of the template isn't to assert article ownership. Just calling the dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. The purpose of the template, no matter what it says, is article ownership. Get rid of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So, like the nominator, your delete rationale is "I don't believe this template really means what it says"? I don't think that's a valid rationale for deleting anything.
  Especially when you make this assertion without any evidence that suggests this actually happens. When, in this or any future TfD on this one, I see someone come in with a stack of diffs purporting to show ownership behavior by editors who have placed this template, then, I'll be open to talking about whether it's credible. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I understand the intent behind this template. Let's say someone had done a lot of work putting together resources for a rewrite of Onychophora and stuck this template on its talk page (note: this is a hypothetical example; it's not in use there). Then, later on, an editor looking to blue link the peripatopsid genus Kumbadjena might know to shoot that editor a message to see what sources are out there, or even get easier access to paywalled stuff. Yay, the encyclopedia wins! But I bet that's not the way it's mostly being used. Despite The Treachery of Disclaimers it looks like a page ownership notice. People who want to communicate their willingness to assist with editing and sourcing have Talk pages and Wikiprojects to do just that, and don't require a template to do so. This, in contrast, adds little benefit at a great deal of potential cost. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said below, "people who come in" are not like "people who've been editing Wikipedia obsessively for years." I have dealt with people like that, believe me. You'd be surprised what they don't know ... and reminded that just because they don't know how to do things on Wikipedia does not make their concerns less valuable. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary and an invitation for page ownership. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone, to your knowledge, accepted this invitation? Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this OWN bait. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well-intentioned but inherently unworkable and problematic. ElKevbo (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, evidence of this? Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure there were good intentions around this, but if it is being used to assert any type of ownership over articles then it needs to go. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "if it is being used to assert any type of ownership over articles then it needs to go" Exactly. In the frenzy to get the pitchforks and torches out, no one has apparently bothered to find any evidence that this problem everyone thinks is occurring actually is occurring. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I used this on an article I've worked on for a while, but I see no problem with having editors refer to the article history to contact someone. There's no need to add yet another tag to an article talk page. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I see no problem with having editors refer to the article history to contact someone". I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question what about a rename and adjusting the display text? As previously mentioned, this template can help editors find someone to provide insight for an article, even if its use is flawed. I would simply have the text read "The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article". Rather than "maintained", I'd probably use something like "Ask user". Just a thought. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's so much of a fundamental change, why not just make a new template for that purpose? I don't support this proposal however as talk pages are cluttered enough and users can once again use the article history or the article talk page for help. In fact users should always post on the article talk page for help because any "maintainer" should have it on their watchlist. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's correct. If an editor has a question about an article, he or she should post it on the talk page. If the "maintainer" is really maintaining, he or she will answer. Or someone with a different perspective will answer. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OWN and per nom and other delete !votes. This really does look like ownership, no matter what the template says. Someone who needs help editing a page should ask for WP:HELP or, as EoRdE6 says, check the article talk page and history for major contributors. Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, has it resulted in actual problems with page ownership? We do not delete things because of purely theoretical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It gives too much of an ownership issue here. Besides those reasons listed above, I must also add that anyone should be able to help out with issues, not just one person. It is not consensus if we all ask what one person thinks, it is just that person's opinion, not our own. I would say that in this way, the template could just be hampering discussions. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "I must also add that anyone should be able to help out with issues, not just one person" And anyone does. As much as I've had the reasons in mind that I gave in my keep !vote, putting this template on talk pages of most articles that I keep on my (rather small by most peoples' standards) watchlist has not made me the absolute be-all and end-all Godhead Fount of All Knowledge on the subject. Plenty of times people, both regular editors and non-editing readers, have completely bypassed the notice and just done whatever they would do without it, even when it would have been easier to just contact me (which is, before you start getting clever, not a reason to delete it. The fact that it does not always work as it should does not by a long shot mean we shouldn't have it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above arguments. If you do something, saying you aren't doing it doesn't actually mean you aren't doing it. Clearly implying ownership doesn't go away simply by insisting it isn't really there. That the template includes it at all is telling - it means that the editors who have worked on it knew that it implies what it clearly implies. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"saying you aren't doing it doesn't actually mean you aren't doing it" It doesn't mean you are, then, either, you must admit, which sort of wraps it up for your argument. The way to combat page ownership is to actually act against editors who do assert it, not delete templates whose wording makes you uncomfortable. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the intention is good, and the template appears to be transcluded into over 4,700 talk pages, I have serious misgivings about this template as it is structured. A rewording would be such a significant change, I would suggest deletion of the current template or potentially redirection to a relevant replacement. The template as it stands provides, at best, implied expertise in the subject; but the /doc for the template makes clear that the only check on expertise is the user self-rating their "strong knowledge of the topic or its sources". If replaced, it would be more accurate to have a template state that the "below listed persons have indicated an interest in the subject" as that's all it can truly be relied upon to provide. The named persons may or may not have any real expertise, the users contacting them would need to determine that for themselves after contacting them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undermines the philosophy behind a wiki, in my opinion, despite stating it does not imply ownership. It still feels that way, as a new user I'd feel like inclined to contact these people rather than be bold and make changes myself. Furthermore, you'd have to maintain this list of active contributors, as people may come and go from the project. If you want to find the most active contributors, you cna simply check the page history or use a tool. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"as a new user I'd feel like inclined to contact these people rather than be bold and make changes myself" I think more new users are scared of being warned and/or blocked by our eternally competent RC patrollers than they are of offending someone by making a change (and, on that score, I learned by watching new editors edit at an edit-a-thon a couple of weeks back that a well-constructed, lengthy, extensively edited page is intimidating enough to them without even bothering to look at the talk page and see if it's a got a "maintained" notice or not). Contacting an experienced Wikipedian who's offered to be contacted (assuming, of course, they're still actively editing) would probably actually be better and more likely to produce the desired result than diving right in.

As for people leaving these notices and then giving up editing, well, as I said to Andy at the top of the page, just ... delete ... the ... notice ... from ... the ... page. Is that so hard? Why do people think every problem here needs to be solved by deleting something? All it takes is a little elbow grease—one edit and the template's off the page. Problem solved. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest keep possible: "if an editor truly needs assistance they can use the page history". Ah, yes, the sound of another Wikipedian who wants to keep as many prospective new editors out of the treehouse as possible so they can keep on doing things the way they've been doing them. That's what this amounts to, regardless of intent.
Actually, I don't see this template directed at other editors so much as readers who come across it and want to get in touch with someone at Wikipedia who is willing to take responsibility for an article and perhaps address some issue with it that really needs to be addressed that we might not otherwise have known about.
So casual readers should be expected to be like all those supersmart Wikipedians and look at the history and figure out, from that, who they should get in touch with? Some people don't even realize history pages exist, and even if they do they're not the easiest things for a non-Wikipedian to make head or tail of to understand even the basics of, much less figure out who they might get in touch with. Yes, I realize that there are readers who don't know talk pages exist, too, but on balance I think more non-editing readers know of them than know of (or know how to decipher) history pages. Having this to give them someone to talk to does a lot more for Wikipedia than the folks voting delete realize. I have had people get int touch with me this way.
Without it, you'll have a lot more well-intended editing that our bot-like RC patrollers, safely ensconced behind Twinkle or Huggle or Snuggle or whatever this season's favorite toy is, will label as disruptive and get blocked, and a lot more people who think that Wikipedia is run by some secretive bunch of poopyheads who care more about keeping the hoi polloi out than they do about keeping articles current or accurate or unbiased.
This template is not about ownership ... it's about transparency, people. Something we supposedly value. There's a good reason this survived the previous TfDs. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another thing to keep up-to-date; the recent edit history is a better indicator of editors interested in maintaining. Frietjes (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am undecided on this question, but the reason I'm considering deletion is not the reason stated in the nomination. I checked several instances of this template on articles in my areas of interest, and some of them are out of date and list inactive or rarely-active users as maintainers. There certainly are some people who find the talk but not the history page, and for those cases an unresponsive maintainer is worse than no maintainer at all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a notice about this TfD at WT:MED, since this template appears to be used fairly often in biomedical articles, and these topics are particularly likely to attract good-faith editors who need some guidance. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove those templates from the pages in question. Responding to the problem of templates that give the name of no-longer-active users by deleting the template is like deciding that, since some of the rooms in your house is a mess, it's just better to demolish it than keep keeping it tidy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom and others above that the template, WP:OWN notwithstanding, seems to encourage (or at least condone) page ownership. Miniapolis 22:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My biggest take-away here is that Daniel Case is in favor of keeping this. Seriously Daniel, we get it. Rest your fingers a bit. — Ched : ? 23:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) bus station

Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) bus station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox bus station}}, which contains all of the key fields. We don't need to list all station facilities; see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Alakzi (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought {{Infobox station}} had been amended with additional parameters to make {{Infobox bus station}} redundant as well. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It does indeed look like {{Infobox bus station}} has all of the parameters of {{Infobox station}}. Thanks for the heads-up. Alakzi (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:James Bond film crew

Template:James Bond film crew (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Incoherent groupings which do not aid navigation. These shouldn't be encouraged, the same way we do not have cast navboxes. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That's a complete mess. Alakzi (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zombi series

Template:Zombi series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Substantial duplication. All links are included at {{Living Dead}} Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 ::Then remove those templates from the pages in question. Responding to the problem of templates that give the name of no-longer-active users by deleting the template is like deciding that, since some of the rooms in your house is a mess, it's just better to demolish it than keep keeping it tidy. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' I agree with the nom and others above that the template, [[WP:OWN]] notwithstanding, seems to encourage (or at least condone) page ownership. [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User_talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] 22:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
+* '''Comment'''.  My biggest take-away here is that {{U|Daniel Case}} is in favor of keeping this.  Seriously Daniel, we get it.  Rest your fingers a bit. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 23:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) bus station]] ====