Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 1

< March 31	April 2 >

April 1

Template:Pp-create

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The result of the debate was Speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator with no remaining delete opinions. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though the look is different, this is in essence a recreation in purpose of the old {{deletedpage}} template that was TFD deleted here. Protecting existing pages to prevent recreation is obsolete and is no longer needed. — TexasAndroid (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not useful. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the template is used as edit summary. _→AzaToth 15:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that means. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in the reason when protecting a non-existent page, see for example User:AzaToth/Nada _→AzaToth 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then my response is that it should not be there either. Protecting pages from recreation by creating them before protecting them is obsolete, and a template that exists for that is thus also obsolete. The existance of this template will persuade some to salt pages improperly. Heck, the reason I found this was that it was being improperly used to do just that. Pages should no longer be salted this way, and a template that promotes doing it this way is causing more bad than it is doing good. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, this template is specially created to be used for the new system. _→AzaToth 18:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can a template that reads "This page is protected from creation..." be used in the new system? The new system is to protect the page when it does not exist. If it does not exist, it cannot have the template. If the tempalte is used, the page will exist, and we are back to the obsolete system. So how can a template exist to be used on pages that do not exist? - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in the protection summary, similar to how blockmessages are used. _→AzaToth 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator misunderstands the purpose of the template; it's not used to slap on a page by creating it and protecting it, but rather as the explanation for the new creation-protection system. It's also worth noting that this template and its sister, {{pp-create-old}}, are part of the site interface now. Keep, if it wasn't clear. east.718 at 18:47, April 3, 2008

<outdent> Ok. I finally see your point. (Took logging out and relogging into a non-admin dopleganger account of mine to actually see it in use, but I do *finally* see it.) Ok. But it is also being used in the exact same way as the old {{deletedpage}} template, and it was this use that got me going here. So I do now see your point, but I still have a major problem with the template as it is being used improperly. Let me drop a note to User:Stifle. If he will withdraw his delete vote, we can likely close this out as a Keep or withdrawn. I really cannot withdraw it as long as there are outstanding Delete !votes. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't work that way. The block templates expand themselves when you read the block message, but the creation templates don't. So it won't work usefully. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Never mind, I had to log out so that I could see how it would work without admin rights. Fine to close this. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Admins just cannot see it in use because it's a protection message and, technically at least, pages are never protected from admins. Anyway, with Stifle's withdrawl of his Delete !vote, I now officially Withdraw this nomination. I'll let someone uninvolved do the technical closure. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Project Chanology summary

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 debate was subst and delete - Nabla (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this template because it seems that this template is a misuse of template space. The author claims that this templates use is justified under the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#transcluding_prose, however if any consensus is to be inferred from that discussion, it is that transcluding prose should be reserved for short subsections. This template could not be considered a small subsection as it is nearly the size of an average article, contains an image, and to date includes up to 27 referernces. Problems this creates are:

Makes it difficult for new editors unfamiliar with template editing to edit the main article.
Makes vandalism easier to mask as it forces article watchers to also watch the template.
Facilitates widespread vandalism by the editing of one template.
Disrupts the easy editing of footnotes since the inclusion of footnotes in the template makes following the flow of footnote numbering in the main articles difficult to follow.
Can complicate the article protection procedure as protection of the template would also be required. Protection of the template would create pockets of protection in articles without any protection.
Can cause inconsistent prose style in main articles and create unintended redundancies.

For these reasons, I believe the template should be further summarized and re-incorporated in the main articles. Eleven Special (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A significant discussion (including my defence for the template's use) has taken place at the template' talk page. I am reproducing it hereunder. Ayla (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy of the discussion which took place at Template talk:Project Chanology summary. Please do not modify it here.

This template is intended to provide a condensed summary of the Project Chanology article for use in directly related pages, such as:

Scientology, Scientology and the Internet section
Scientology and the Internet, Project Chanology section
Anonymous (group), Project Chanology section

I had written up this text by first summarizing the Project Chanology article (over 5000 words) to the Scientology and the Internet#Project Chanology section (about 850 words), then further condensing it for Scientology#Scientology and the Internet (about 300 words), and subsequently copying it to Anonymous (group)#Project Chanology. Since then, the three sections have been edited independently of each other by various editors.

I am proposing replacing the contents of the said sections by the transclusion of this template. Transclusion of prose has already been discussed before; however, given the evolving nature of the subject and source article, transclusion might be warranted in this case. Once the need for regular updates ceases, the template may be substituted into the above articles. Ayla (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but there are a couple of problems that need to be ironed out.

The wikilink to the Anonymous page becomes a self-referential link on the Anonymous page itself.
Anonymous is introduced without any description of what it is, so each article containing this template should have some introductory text.
The beginning of this template should be rewritten to assume that introductory text is there.

My two cents... --Good Damon 19:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All valid points. (In fact, the Anonymous article already contains such an opening sentence.) The wikilink to Anonymous may be removed, and instead placed within the introductory text in each article. A quick draft (taken from Project Chanology#Formation) for the introductory text for Scientology#Scientology and the Internet and Scientology and the Internet#Project Chanology would be:

In early 2008, another protest against the Church of Scientology was organised by the Internet-based group Anonymous, which originally consisted of users of the English speaking imageboards 711chan.org and 4chan, the associated partyvan.info wiki, and several Internet Relay Chat channels.

Project Chanology#Formation then continues in a manner similar to the template ("on January 16, 2008 after the Church of Scientology issued a copyright violation claim against YouTube [...]"). Ayla (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory sentence added: [1], [2]. Ayla (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the template talk page appears to conclude that templates for article prose is a very bad idea, and the way you are trying to implement it does not fall into one of the agreed exceptions. Articles should not have identical text to other articles. For example, the Anonymous (group) page should have a small section summarizing Project Chanology with a link to the main article. This is the way it's been done for a long time and this is not an improvement. Eleven Special (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template aims to be the "small section summarizing Project Chanology" that you mention. Excluding the extra detail in Scientology and the Internet (which was contested), the three target articles had practically identical text; differences consisted mostly of inaccuracies, the absence of a citation, or announcements of "future" events which had already taken place and not been updated. Ayla (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bad idea because the subsections within an article should have consistent style of prose, not be carbon copies of sections included in other articles. I don't see a pressing need for this template. We're not talking about cricket matches. Eleven Special (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Ayla here. These articles should all have a summary of Project Chanology, and those summaries shouldn't disagree with one another. A template is a good way to make sure that happens. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but it will take some work. Where's the main policy or argument on this? --Good Damon 21:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion here (which I admit I haven't read completely yet). Eleven Special: Whilst I understand your point about avoiding carbon copies, such a restriction should not be enforced just for the sake of doing so. There is only one Project Chanology, and the summary only highlights the sequence of principal events thus far; I can see no reason why this sequence should differ amongst articles. Good Damon's suggestion of appending an introductory sentence to each article (and, if necessary, a closing sentence after the template) would address the issue of differing contexts. Ayla (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's a bad idea because eventually the huge "summaries" in the Scientology and probably the Scientology and the Internet articles are going to need condensing. (Or will they grow at the same amount for every month's event?) Wiki already has a tool for this sort of thing: {{main|Project Chanology}} If something is so long and in multiple places that using a template to simplify the problems of maintaining it seems like a good idea, then it's definitely too long. AndroidCat (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All three articles have a {{main|Project Chanology}} tag before or after the summary. The length of the summary is a separate issue (it may be condensed a bit further, for example by removing the lists of cities). However, irrespective of the summary's size, the problem of having to perform updates in multiple locations would still exist. It is being said that a protest is planned for each month at least up to June; having to update all three articles (in addition to the source Project Chanology) is the kind of trouble we are trying to avoid through the template. Should the protests stop, the template could then be substituted into the articles. Ayla (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to figure out how to make the template more easily accessible for editors who may not be familiar with templates. Z00r (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included the following comment in each article just before the template:

<!--

The template transcluded below may be edited at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Project_Chanology_summary

Please direct discussions regarding its use to the template's talk page

-->

Ayla (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. - I'm sorry but I agree with AndroidCat (talk · contribs) on this particular idea. Better to have individual paragraphs tailored to each individual article, as opposed to a template for prose. However, this sort of thing could be used as a model, and initially placed into the articles not as a template, but perhaps with "subst". Cirt (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The net result of substituting the template would be equivalent to the original situation when I had first created the three sections: initially identical content, but eventually developing separately. Which might have been a good thing in theory (even though I disagree); however, it failed to work in practice. Here are the last versions of the articles before I introduced the template, together with the last few sentences from each (citations removed but discussed):

Anonymous (group): "Anonymous held a second wave of protests on March 15 in cities all over the world, including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Vancouver, Toronto, Berlin, and Dublin. The global turnout was estimated to be between 7000 and 8000. Anonymous will hold its third protest against Scientology on April 12, 2008. Named "Operation Reconnect", it will aim to increase awareness of the Church of Scientology's disconnection policy." All correctly cited (mostly by myself).
Scientology: "Anonymous had another protest on March 15, and plans yet another on April 12th." April 12 protest correctly cited, March 15 incorrect (source was last updated February 10).
Scientology and the Internet: "Anonymous protested again on March 15, it is estimated that over 9,000 Anonymous were present at protests worldwide. Anonymous is planning a third protest for April 12, using the codename Operation: Reconnect." The only citation given for the two sentences is the same February 10 source discussed above, which mentions neither the "over 9,000" protesters on March 15, nor the plans for April 12. Thus, they are effectively not cited at all.

I am sure that this is not the desired result. However, I would be interested to hear what tailoring you had in mind. Maybe it could be achieved through the introductory sentences proposed above (and added), without needing to substitute yet. Ayla (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be fine if it were a simple three sentence paragraph. But this template is the size of an article with multiple paragraphs, an image, and twenty seven references! This is a mess for anyone editing the general articles. Eleven Special (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For me the issue is keeping several articles current and consistent vs. writing versions tailored for specific pages. The technical considerations about difficulties with semiprotection, references, etc are secondary. Z00r (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Not a valid use of Template namespace. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the points raised by Eleven Special are worth considering, and the suggestion of tailoring the prose for each specific article would have been great if any concrete modifications of this nature were proposed or performed. However, as I have already argued, the disadvantages of having to (or, more likely, failing to) update the separate versions outweigh these considerations. In the collapsed discussion above, I had given concrete examples of how the content in the individual articles had degraded as a result of being kept separately. Here are two more examples:

The Scientology article made no mention whatsoever of Project Chanology, save for a picture and a "see also" link, until February 14 – four days after the first wave of protests – even though there had been an abundance of reliable sources in the Project Chanology article for weeks.
As of March 21, the Scientology article still contained: "Anonymous has stated the next protest will be on March 15."

Unfortunately, the quantitative consensus will most likely be dominated by appeal to tradition rather than a practical evaluation of the specific situation. However, given the way these discussions work, I have no intention of attempting to individually overturn the consensus. Since no-one else appears to agree with the merits of keeping the template, then go ahead and delete. Ayla (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the nom's six problems:

Put an HTML comment beside the transclusion instructing new editors to go to Template:Project Chanology summary.
Makes vandalism easier to detect by putting the content in a central place. You ever try to maintain 3+ articles covering the same subject?
3 transclusions is not so widespread that vandalism to the template noticeably harms the quality of the encyclopedia.
You don't edit footnotes by number, you look for them and edit individually.
The protection procedure is already complicated. When an entire article is protected, editors cannot edit uncontroversial sections. If the template or its transcluding articles happen to get protected, the effect would actually be an improvement over the current system.
I trust the editors involved to make sure this isn't a problem.

Otherwise, it's an editorial decision and there's no inherent problem with duplicate introductions to the topic in broader articles. –Pomte 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven Special wrote: "Makes it difficult for new editors unfamiliar with template editing to edit the main article." Templates are used extensively on the main page, sports articles and all portals. Typically there is a clickable 'edit' link. HTML comments are not friendly to new editors. Just put a clickable edit link in the Project Chanology template.
The nomination also said: "Can cause inconsistent prose style in main articles". Many encyclopedias have sidebars or boxes that visually identify a piece of the article that presents some specific facts, is in a different style, or is from a different contributor. Instead of being jarring, a sidebar adds variety and a change of pace to the article.
This could be an opportunity to introduce a sidebar style into Wikipedia articles. This is a wiki where editors' experiments should be welcomed, discussed, and then kept or deleted on their own merits. I say keep until it causes serious problems. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I had originally used an HTML comment in the three articles (see [3] for example). However, Hroðulf's suggestion of including an edit link might be better. How about using {{Lts/}}? The sidebar idea also sounds interesting, but I'm afraid it would take way too much discussion to get accepted. Ayla (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hrothulf has convinced me. Z00r (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete Usually I would like to support this kind of experiment, but it is trivial to copy-paste content from one article to another, and using the template needlessly constricts editors of the individual articles into tailoring their edits in a way that serves all 6 (or however many) articles, rather than the article they are currently editing. Bold editors should not have to worry about unintended consequences. The potential gain is far outweighed by barriers from added complexity. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were indeed trivial, then why did nobody do it before the creation of the template? Do you find it tolerable that we are presenting stagnant information simply because editors can't be bothered to take up a redundant task? And, again, could you give one concrete example of tailoring which might need to be performed, which wouldn't be served by the leading/closing sentences discussed on the talk page? (By the way, there are 3 articles in which the template is used.) Ayla (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite simply, this is not how templates are supposed to be used, for all the reasons pointed out by User:Eleven Special. If we're going to start using templates like this, then we're going to have to rewrite Wikipedia:Template namespace, as it says right there: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." Terraxos (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete as per concerns raised above. I simply don't see any reason as to how this makes anything easier on editors. The same reason you cite as making it more difficult to vandals is the same thing that will daunt inexperienced editors who wish to edit the template. Not everybody understands template transclusion. I also do not believe this is an appropriate application of template transclusion. The text should go directly into its respective articles. — scetoaux (T|C) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute and delete. This makes it more difficult for all editors (including newbies) to control the content, leaving control in the hands of a few experienced editors. There should only be a maximum of one step between editors and the article, and that's the article's own talk page. -- Fyslee 23:18, April 5, 2008 (UTC)
Substitute and delete. Per Fyslee (talk · contribs), which is pretty much in-line with comments I had already stated at the template's talk page. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fact

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 debate was Yes, it was an April Fool - even if not I think I'd have broken the server to tag the template at TFD :) Stifle (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spammed all over the encyclopedia with no real purpose, meaning or logic. Causes far too many transclusion calls and a drain on resources. — Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 11:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – clearly notable. Gracenotes^T § 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A core part of the project's requirements towards reliable sourcing. That it gets misused at times does not make it a bad/improper template. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the template has not itself been properly tagged as being up for TFD. Given that this is (IMHO) a key project template, nominated by an admin, I'm thinking this whole nomination may be an April Fools joke of some sort. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging the template for TFD may produce more server drain than days (maybe weeks) of use will ever produce :) Gracenotes^T § 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think more than 10,000 transclusions and being featured in an xkcd comic makes it pretty notable. :) Jokes aside, it's important as a representation/reminder of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 21:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Speed subtemplates of template convert

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 debate was delete both - Nabla (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following subtemplates are designed to allow for kilometres per hour and miles per hour to be specified in template calls of {{convert}} using the respective codes km:h and mi:h. In accordance with discussions on the template talk page this code has been depreciated in favour of a new coding in which the code is identical to the unit abbreviation/symbol. All of the main space tranclusions of these subtemplates have been moved over to the new code. These subtemplates no longer serve any useful purpose, let them be deleted. JЇѦρ 08:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Convert/km:h

Delete assuming they have been migrated correctly. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lightmouse (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Convert/mi:h

Delete assuming they have been migrated correctly. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lightmouse (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.