Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

February 19

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

The result of the discussion was kept. A note: policy changesd shouldn't be conducted as TfD. _→AzaToth 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:db-histmerge

This is part of the system to deal with cut-and-paste moves, alongside WP:SPLICE. Having dealt with cut-and-paste moves for some time, I've become frustrated with this particular part of the system and feel that it's no longer useful and should be removed. This template categorises the page that it is placed on into CAT:CSD, where (supposedly) an admin will come along and complete the merge. There are a few problems with this, which are:

History merges can be complicated. You have to have some idea of what you're doing to perform one correctly, and they require a good deal of looking into to be sure that you're doing the right thing, because if you mess up it's very hard to undo what you've done. Based on my experience both in cleaning CSD and with other people's reactions to that job, most people don't want to spend a lot of time learning what is essentially a Wikipedia niche to fix the problem correctly — they want to empty CSD well and quickly. Thus, number 2:
The people who know how to fix cut-and-paste moves aren't always in CSD. CSD isn't the right place to go for this. CSD is great for quickly clearing simple issues that everyone agrees on. I have seen multiple admins delete the page that this was on, thinking that that's all there is to it. History merges belong somewhere else, which brings me to my third point:
There already is a good system that doesn't require this template. That system is WP:SPLICE. This is a more efficient system, for all I need to is watch the page, and as soon as someone posts something I see it as soon as I log on, and it's done. Categories are great for high-volume issues where any time I check in there'll be work, but for slower, more complex, low-volume issues a watchlist and a page like SPLICE is much more efficient so I don't have to continually check on the category or Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Db-histmerge to see if something's been placed there in the last few days. So, to conclude:
This template isn't efficient and confuses the issue by placing the pages into an inappropriate locale (CSD), an inappropriate system (categories), and adds an unnecessary level of complexity.

Thus, I think that this template should be deleted (or redirected to SPLICE) and simply have the issues sent to SPLICE for the above reasons. Kyle Barbour 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've tagged a few cut-and-paste moves with this. I had the impression it was more of a notice, and helped to discourage further editing of the articles until the history work was done. I think the template db-histmerge should remain so editors can still use it, but if the text should be changed to point to WP:SPLICE rather than add the article to a CSD category, that seems fine with me. Doesn't this result in a bit more of a policy change than simply deleting a template, though? Also {{db-g6}} would need some changing, possibly to split out mention of history merges. Gimmetrow 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm O.K. with leaving it as a notice, pointing the poster to SPLICE, but really it would be best (IMHO) if it were either gone, with relevant pages pointing to SPLICE, or if really necessary having it be a redirect or a statement saying to list the page at SPLICE. As for the policy change: not really: the CSD doesn't change one bit, and no other policy on the issue is altered in the slightest. Procedural change, yes, but there's maybe six people that do the procedure regularly, I seem to be the most active one, and none of the others commented when I posted this to SPLICE a week and a half ago. Thus, that doesn't seem like much of a problem to me. And as for {{db-g6}}, if we just crop out the history merge part, it's golden. Kyle Barbour 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it help or hurt if editors edit after cut-and-paste moves? If it doesn't make the process worse on your end (or if you don't mind it), it's your call, but the first time I tried to find the procedure for fixing such moves, I found it through db-histmerge. (Someone must be looking at the recent Category:History merge for speedy deletion.) I assume you will change the procedure part of WP:SPLICE if this template is deleted? Gimmetrow 22:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter. All of the edits are kept, they're just now in one place rather than in two. If there's a lot of recent edits then it can make it necessary to merge material, but it's generally not much of a problem. If we're going to have a template that says not to edit the page until the history merge is made, that'd be great, but that should be a different template, perhaps at something like Template:Histwarning. Category:History merge for speedy deletion, while better than the general CSD pool, still isn't as good a system as just having an ordinary page like SPLICE for the reasons I outlined above in #3. And naturally I would change the procedure at SPLICE, as well as modify all other relevant pages (I think they comprise WP:MOVE, WP:CPMV, WP:MGA, {{db-g6}}, and deleting Category:History merge for speedy deletion). Kyle Barbour 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I thought the creation of the csd sub-category was an improvement, but the procedure outlined here looks better. Gimmetrow 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If an admin does not know how to perform a history merge, they may very well mess up both pages; it is not all that obvious. Also, this most certainly should not be showing up on articles; this is the kind of meta-info that no reader could concievably care about. -Amarkov moo! 01:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this template is GFDL copyright violation edit hitsory merge template. --Tujn 11:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your point. The debate isn't over what it is, but its merits. If what you're saying is that there isn't a way to deal with the copyright issue if this is removed, that's false: there's WP:SPLICE, which has already been around for some time and which I feel is superior for the reasons I listed above. Do you have a rebuttal to those points to justify your vote of keep? Kyle Barbour 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Perfectly good CSD reason in itself, but not very sensible as a tag. A better tag would be, as mentioned above, a simple warning "This page is pending history-merge, do not edit it until this process is complete", and use WP:SPLICE for making requests. --Random832 15:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to stop editing on a page that will be history merged (the edits will be deleted and then restored again). Kusma (討論) 15:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it was decided to abolish the old template a year ago and to use this one instead. I do history merges every now and then, all of them found via this template and CAT:CSD, which I patrol every day. I'd probably stop doing history merges if they aren't in the speedy category anymore. Most history merges are obvious, and the process is easy enough to complete. Perhaps we should add a warning notice for admins not to delete the page if they don't know how to undelete it to complete the history merge? Kusma (討論) 15:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's faster for newpage patrollers to use this than to post on a less-often-checked page which might get backlogged if it weren't for CSD taking the load off it. I imagine most admins would have enough judgement to stay away from history merges if they didn't understand them, and they're not ridiculously difficult anyway. However, it would help if the template looked less like a speedy template (I've known someone to place {{hangon}} on an article in response to {{db-histmerge}}!). --ais523 18:53, 23 February 2007 (U T C)
Keep. Admins that don't know how to do history merges usually stay away them, so that isn't an argument. If an admin does mess up, then please tell him or her that on his or her talk page, so the admin can learn the proper procedure. All CSD templates, as well as all cleanup messages, are arguably meta-information that readers don't care about, but they're left on the Main namespace anyways. While a modification would be nice, there is a purpose for this template; CSD G6 won't be removed by deleting this template, which means that someone will probably end up recreating it somewhere. Whether WP:SPLICE should replace speedy deletion is a broader issue that should be discussed elsewhere, not in TFD. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having seen admins mess up merges, I would disagree with you that those who don't know how to do them stay away from them (I can provide at least one recent example). No one has argued that CSD G6 should be modified; indeed, this would leave it completely unchanged. While someone may recreate it elsewhere, I don't see why that is a reason why this should be kept (I can think of several instances of other things that should remain deleted despite the fact that they will eventually be recreated). Lastly, nowhere is anyone arguing that WP:SPLICE should replace CSD. Rather, it is being suggested that articles that require history merges should not need this template, many do not already. This is very different than abolishing CSD. CSD is not affected by this in the least. Kyle Barbour 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how a few admins messing up history merges means that other admins who do know how to do them need to be affected by deleting the template. If the CSD is going to remain in force, then how does deleting this template actually make history merges easier? It just makes them invisible. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You do have a point. Maybe this should just get a different category, so it doesn't affect CSD patrol? -Amarkov moo! 03:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is. Category:History merge for speedy deletion. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. This template is useful for easy jobs like State Road 43 (Florida) to Florida State Road 43. Use the cut and paste move repair holding pen for jobs that are more complicated like Windows Update to Microsoft Update. Jesse Viviano 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Modify. Create a new category at Category:Pages that need history merges, and add this category to an includeonly area in the template. This will help direct these pages to administrators who like to perform history merges, like how copyright violations are directed into Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion. Jesse Viviano 20:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jesse Viviano. Actually I just did the SR43 history merge and saw the template was nominated for deletion, that's why I'm hear. Useful template to speedy up the simple history merges. --W.marsh 03:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I just came to this after seeing one of these in CSD, and performing the history merge and delete operations needed. While not all admins will handle this there are plenty that will, not all admins handle everything in CSD anyway (e.g. I don't delete non-orphaned images unless they are PAttacks). Many users are familiar with this process, but if the desire is to make this not go to CAT:CSD that can be done by obtaining consensus and just editing the template to put these pages somewhere else. — xaosflux ^Talk 07:56, 25 February 2007 (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:Sock lover

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 page.

The result of the debate was userfy and delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that funny, I can't see this template as having much use, and besides it's very divisive. On top of this, this is only used by two people. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace This doesn't need to be deleted, but it should be migrated per WP:GUS. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Glorifies the use of sock puppets. --kingboyk 09:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy It is not against Wikipedian policies or guidelines to merely use sockpuppets. Gracenotes ^T § 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:GUS -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as per Gracenotes and Selmo. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSock puppets are a terrible source of user attrition and the 100-rule is bad enough. This template glorifies edit-warring because the chronic, legitimate, sometimes even multiple sock puppets are often used for this.--Grace E. Dougle 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Gracenotes and Selmo. --Steven 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if somone WANTS to host it, if not, delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 07:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD T1. This is bad enough it reminded me of {{User 911 good}}, which said that the 9/11 attacks were a good thing. Jesse Viviano 20:51, 25 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:WikiProjectBanners

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep, although the CSS modifications suggested late in the debate should be explored further. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree some talk pages have gotten out of hand with their template banners, but not all ideas are good for how to clean up the situation. This template basically just shoves all the WikiProject templates of a given talk page into a drawer, rendering the banners useless. If you're going to do that then you might as well just not use the banners in the first place. The hide-and-forget method is a sloppy way of dealing with this situation.

Kirill Lokshin had some good ideas (see Template talk:WikiProjectBanners#I don't like it). Many talk pages this is being added to can just as easily use the Small option without issue. Many WikiProject banners can be easily shortened. We all agree that we need to do something about this, but we can do better than hide-and-forget. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I absolutely agree with this. Unless the banners are visible there is no point whatsoever. I proposed and implemented the small parameter in templates for a reason, and it has proved absolutely satisfactory everywhere it is currently used. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ArticleHistory template has a valid purpose in that it hides old reviews etc that are somewhat "outdated" or old. It still keeps the most important information (the current status) visible. This template, however, defeats the purpose of the wikiproject templates in the first place. Harryboyles 08:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main purpose of the talk page is still to discuss the article, not to recruit members for WikiProjects. Small templates are an option for many pages, but if editors choose to use this template on others, I don't think it's necessary to enforce a one-size-fits-all solution by deleting it. Dekimasu が... 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we should only use things like the small option, which is why I also pointed out Kirill's nifty examples. We could ban WikiProject banners all together and that would seem less sloppy than just hiding them like this. I just think this specific solution isn't a good idea. Lets clean up the mess, but with a better idea. -- Ned Scott 09:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Kirill's ideas enjoy support (and of course they are useful ideas as well), couldn't the code for this template be edited to simply show text links to the individual WikiProjects hidden by the banner? That is, rather than having six one-line templates with "show" tabs as in Kirill's suggestion, couldn't we display something like what appears at User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template4 but with the names of the individual WikiProjects separated by commas? Dekimasu が... 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Kirill is now showing an example of what I was trying to say at User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14. Dekimasu が... 17:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wikiprojects have had their opportunity for reform. The end result was the "small" option, a CSS hack which, to be perfectly honest, is ugly as hell. Wikiprojects have a vested interest in continuing to use talk pages as their personal advertising space, and there's no reason to expect them to reform themselves. This template, on the other hand, does the job elegangtly - it is extremely easy to deploy and very usable at the same time. Raul654 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what? the small option wasn't something that was even widely known about while it was being discussed, and it was for ALL talk page templates, not just WikiProject banners. Most projects are fine if you edit their banner to make it smaller (as in, actually smaller, not the small option), or won't care if you remove it from a page it doesn't need to be on. They had their opportunity? What little drama is playing out in your mind? Most projects aren't aware if they are causing a problem or not, and this is the first time it's been widely addressed. This template is elegant? "Personal advertising space"?? Who the fuck put these ideas into your head? When has it ever been "evil" to promote editing collaboration (besides conflicts of interest, etc)? You can't just throw in the word advertise to make something "bad". They spread the word about collaborative editing, just like thousands of other messages that I doubt you would call an "ad". -- Ned Scott 08:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continue discussion - for example, this template already supports the 'small' option, and if you delete this, you can't implement Kirill's suggestion. If you like Kirill's suggestion so much, wait a bit, and then start a competing template and see which one people end up using more. Carcharoth 09:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Kirill's examples are pretty much a whole new template, and you would need to manually update the template tags on each talk page to be compatible.. so I don't see why this template would be needed to use those ideas. And I can just see the needless heated debates this will generate when more WikiProjects get wind of it. Given how some of Wikipedia's editing trends go (sometimes someone edits via monkey-see-monkey-do, sometimes because they think one sounds more official than another option, sometimes.. etc etc) I don't think that seeing which one people will use most is necessarily the best way to do this. I can see it going either direction for no particular reason. -- Ned Scott 09:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the banners aren't visible, they are not serving their purpose. Additionally, I think it is fine to use these as a way to recruit for projects. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - currently (at time of writing) in use on just over 500 talk page templates. I guess a bot would be needed to undo all this if the result is delete? (I think a bot, or at least semi-automation, was used to carry out the additions, but am not entirely sure). Carcharoth 10:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sampling three talk pages at random, it seems that those 500 have been done by hand, so maybe reversing this would have to be done by hand as well? Carcharoth 10:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally, having been added to 500 talk pages manually in two weeks of existence seems a broad endorsement of the idea behind the template. Dekimasu が... 16:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Only people with registered accounts will actually want to see what wiki-projects the article belongs to. It makes the talk page much neater and hey, clicking 'show' sure involves a lot of effort, right? M3tal H3ad 11:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Improves talk page clarity and accessibility, and puts the TOC where users can see it without first scrolling down a few screens on pages with three or more wikiproject listings. See Talk:Barack Obama. --HailFire 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could be a little expanded. Like "if you want to participate etc etc". But it's a neat template which stops cluttering up the talk page. Garion96 (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the "small" option sufficient for this? Kusma (討論) 13:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just prefer the show option over the small templates. Even small they clutter the talk page. IMO of course. Garion96 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, use the "small" option instead or create a new "header only" option for the wikiproject templates that makes them show up as one line only. Talk page banner ads are necessary for WikiProject recruitment, and hiding them defeats that purpose. Kusma (討論) 13:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its better for article talk pages to display all of the Wikiprojects which fall within the scope of the main article, this is not necessary.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 14:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is helpful to have some organization. The banners can be hidden if all one wants to do is talk. One click, and all the banners are visible to those that need to see them. I, too, think that the small templates clutter the talk pages and look bad.--Eva ^bd 14:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just use small. This is also obtrusive to Wikiproject assessments, in that it hides the class and importance by default. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It hides them by default because there is no good reason they should be displayed by default. The majority of talk page visitors do not need or want that information. They do need and want a clutter-free talk page. The ones who need them know damn-well where to find them. Raul654 16:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some people don't want to see if the article is in the scope of whichever WikiProject, and want to get straight to the discussion. I have come across lots of these lately, and like Evadb said, it's good to have some organisation. And no, it's not obtrusive to WikiProject assessments, it's simply hiding them from people that don't need to see them. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 15:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep How many reasons can I list from an excruciatingly slow dialup connection? I have occasion to visit numerous and varied talk pages in the work I do at WP:FAC and WP:FAR. While there are a few exemplary WikiProjects that keep up with the articles they have tagged, these projects seem to be in the extreme minority. Not only do most Projects not contribute to writing or maintaining the articles they tag; months of experience at WP:FAR shows that most of the Projects make no effort whatsoever to preserve featured status on articles that have fallen into neglect in spite of repeated notifications to the Projects when articles come up for review. So, talk pages are cluttered by often gynormous tags (often as many as six or seven, and some so long as to required scrolling through several screens to get to the talk text), making it hard to use the talk page to actually discuss the article, with little benefit. If an editor needs to locate the Projects, they are in the banner, and full functionality to the Projects is retained. I often am restricted to a slow dialup (when I travel); another reason to consider the need to clean up extreme talk page clutter. I could give more reasons; that's all for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, for all reasons previously discussed. Talk pages are for discussing an article, not free advertising space for wikiprojects. Raul654 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Like others have mentioned, this template just seems the best option for solving talk page clutter at the present; the small option just makes things more cluttered and can make some wikiproject banners hard to read. And like User:SandyGeorgia stated, the numerous banners are a problem for those with slow dial-up connections. I mean, how many times can anyone here say they've specifically visited the talk page to see which wikiproject(s) an article is under the scope of? In my opinion, it's a much better idea to obscure the banners from view – allowing easier talk page navigation. Users then have the option of showing the banners if they so wish. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 16:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just take a look at Talk:Tenacious D which has eight WikiProject banners. It creates a mess which takes awhile to load for people with slower connections. The purpose of WikiProjects is to provide resources that may be helpful for articles. If a person wants to use those resources, they'll be smart enough to expand the banner for a list of resources available. There's no need to clutter the talk page with them. ShadowHalo 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the template, as currently implemented, take any less time to load for people with slower connections? I think it still loads everything, renders it, and collapses it, no? Gimmetrow 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. It still loads everything. It shouldn't take any less time to load. Dekimasu が... 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a total guess on my part - I *think* smarter browsers download hidden information last. So while downloading the total page would take just as long, the user would percieve the page as loading faster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raul654 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, that was my impression. Regardless, the issue of the clutter that the banners create remains. And having the right side of half the page filled with banners doesn't help much either. ShadowHalo 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This needs time to mature. I find the arguments that this hides WP templates a bit ironic, because I've complained that it makes them bigger and more prominent. I would prefer a container with one-line expandable bars for each project, but that won't happen if this gets deleted. Deleting this template would be tantamount to deleting the banners project. Gimmetrow 16:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-If clicking "show" is too much effort for somebody, I don't think they'll be doing anything with WikiProjects, anyway.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - For reasons given above. Would Talk:Frank Black be easier to navigate without this header? CloudNine 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikiprojects do not need to have a banner which displays them to everyone, because they do not own the article. They should be there, in case you have an issue that would affect a large group of articles, but for someone who just wants to fix the one article, it's pointless to see five banners on the talk page. -Amarkov moo! 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Keep - [1]. --Conti|✉ 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a comment at User talk:SatyrBot/Current project - hopefully the fauna overtagging will be rolled back. Carcharoth 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above – makes for easier reading, and it's not hard to click Show. EALacey 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as above, I love this idea. Quadzilla99 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Completely Modify - one of the major points of the WikiProjects is that people with like interests easily find each other. Making those connections difficult to achieve is not in Wikipedia's best interests. If the names (at least) of the WikiProjects could be shown on the template, that would at least reduce some of the harm of this template. Spamreporter1 18:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I though Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Users should be going to talk pages to discuss improvements to the article, not to find other people who have similar interests. ShadowHalo 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, surely it can't be too hard to click 'Show'? ĤĶ51→^Łalk 18:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it a great solution.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Along the lines of what Spamreporter1 said, how about a "names" field. The name of each WikiProject would appear as a word or two with a link, (or not, depending on the community's preference). For example, the banner at Talk:Tenacious D would have line that said, "Comics, Tenacious D, Rock music, Composers, Psychedelics, California, Southern California, Biography" (I don't feel like linking them here). It would summarize everything quickly without taking up much space. ShadowHalo 18:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a good idea, but it wouldn't show what each Wikiproject has rated the article. Take a look at Talk:AC/DC for example, how would this system show each Wikiproject's rating of the article on its talk page? ĤĶ51→^Łalk 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think the average user needs to know. ShadowHalo 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't {{ArticleHistory}} display the current assessment rating? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but for Tenacious D there isn't a need for most of those banners, just remove them. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But shouldn't that information be available to users who do want to know? I think it should. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. All you have to do is click "Show". I'm suggesting we add in an extra line to summarize what can already be accessed by clicking "Show", not that we replace the templates with a one-line list. ShadowHalo 18:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, seems I've misunderstood you. Well yeh, this certainly seems like a good compromise. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 18:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Some editors like banners for projects, some don't. This template does fulfill the purpose of banners. If editors like to know what projects support an article, a simple click does it. If an editor wants to see the actual discussions on a talk page, then hiding (by one click) the banners allows that. When an article has five banners on it, the small function is just not sufficient. --Bejnar 18:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adjust and Keep: I think Kirill Lokshin's latest suggestion (see User:Kirill_Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14 ) works well. At a quick glance, you can check under whose scope the WikiProjects fall. Those who want more information on the WikiProjects can click on Show to see the projects' descriptions on their banner and their ratings on the article. Those who just want the discussions (the purpose of the Talk page) can bypass the banners and go straight to the discussions. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 18:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look at all the banners Talk:Hurricane Rita. And yet there's only two comments below all that. lol Good kitty 19:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take it elsewhere, although I do object to this template (as states higher up), I would be for a more thorough formalization of banner usage. Standardizing the way they are listed as small infoboxes to the right of the talk page perhaps like the Userbox grouping with {{Boxboxtop}} seems like a good idea to me. I think this is a discussion that needs to take place elsewhere and should be broadened. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I find this template incredibly useful for articles that are in three or more projects. It gives you freedom to have certain components (ex., {{todo}} or {{reqphoto}}) outside of the collapsed box. It allows those editors who wish to see an article's projects do so, and those who refer to it as "template spam" can ignore it. A perfect solution, in my opinion. If you don't want to use it, then don't-- but don't delete it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adjust and Keep per User:fmmarianicolon. Adjust it to look like User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14. I would prefer to use the small option for things other than Wikiprojects; like people have said, there can be so many wikiprojects that smallifying everything defeats the purpose of reducing clutter. This way the important things (FA or GA status) can remain normal-sized, to do lists and such can be smallified, and wikiprojects put in this template. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the small=yes option is a much better solution than this. This is an idea that seems to have more detriments than advantages. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per SandyGeorgia's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Project banners contribute little to an article's talk page, and articles don't "belong to" projects. I don't mind a project expressing an interest in an article, but popular articles get their talk pages cluttered up by a plethora of banners. I think article editors ought to have some say in how prominent the claims by projects should be. RossPatterson 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't "belong to" projects. The banners I've seen say they are "within the scope of" a wikiproject. Canadianshoper 02:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that editors wanting assistance should take a look at the WikiProjects. There's no reason for people to need to see that Tenacious D is under the scope of WikiProject Comics; the Tenacious D WikiProject; the Rock music WikiProject; WikiProject Composers; the WikiProject on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants; WikiProject California; WikiProject Southern California; and WikiProject Biography. ShadowHalo 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, per what I've said before on the template's talk page. Not only is the small option sufficient for most cases, modifying existing templates, creating something along the lines of User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template4 is much better, if indeed truly necessary. This template is an ugly, senseless hack that doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help users like Sandy on dial-up, because the entire page still has to load beforehand, regardless of whether WikiProject tags are shoved into a hidden div or not. It doesn't help WikiProjects, because it makes their primary means of recruitment hidden under a layer of obscure fluff. If there's WikiProjects that are spamming talk pages and not doing anything, bring it up with them. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pages can simply use the "skip to contents" option if their are alot of project banners. Then those who are interested can look at the banners. (Million_Moments 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Strong delete: The banners on the talkpage should show that an article is actually looked after by certain projects, how certain projects are rating the article, and show that it is e.g. selected for the CD-version. That information should not be hidden. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per SandyGeorgia and others. Those users interested in which projects are involved can click "show" and look. Those who aren't, can bypass them. And those who edit certain Talk pages so often they've memorized the text of each and every banner they have had to scroll past to get to the discussions no longer have to put up the annoyance. I honestly don't see the major issue here. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newest version at User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14. The fact that it now says the names of the projects without clicking show first clears up my reservations towards it. --PresN 02:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, but modify as per User:Kirill_Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14. Planetneutral 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Disavian. I was so happy that this template was created. Its the best solution for replacing wikiproject banners. See them if you want, don't see them if you don't want to. The skip to contents works, but people should be imformed of what is between it and the contents. Further, some non-users don't have an idea about what wikiprojects are. By using this banner, they don't get so confused.Canadianshoper 02:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above reasons.

Modify if possible. If there is some way to just list the Wikiproject names (The page name link minus the Wikipedia namespace part) and have the option of expanding them. ie.: the Foo Fighters talk page:

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects:
1: WikiProject Rock music [expand]
2: WikiProject Alternative music [expand]
3: WikiProject Biography [expand]

(pretty much like User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template4, but with the header)

-- Reaper X 03:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but I don't understand the logic of some arguments here. For example, keeping per Kirill's sandbox template won't work because it would basically be a new template (it would require that each page the template is used on be modified to work, no different than changing it). If we want to keep the same document and name, fine, but this method should not be used. Also, it would not be fair to assume that this solution has strong support due to the number of inclusions because the vast majority don't know of the alternatives. A huge number of pages haven't even discovered the small option yet.

Some people almost seem to hate WikiProject banners and want to stomp on them with this template (for a lack of better words). There are a great deal of banners that are fat and bloated, and now every one gets judged because some projects got carried away. The idea of a WikiProject banner is that someone seeking to improve that article can find valuable resources in guidelines, centralized discussion, and more, that directly lead to better articles. Is that not the reason we are here? Some banners do miss the point, but remember we've never really had strong (or easy to find) guidelines on project banners in the first place.

One solution to this would be to re-standardize banners to only having one line shown at the individual level, which would be far more efficient than this current method and would result in something many of the keeps are desiring. We are not saying we should keep displaying banners the way we do on crowded pages, which is what many people are trying to make this out to be. Regardless of this template's existence, we have a situation to fix, but come on, this is hardly the best, or even a good way to handle it. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential note: actually, this new version can be implemented in-place, without changing the existing uses of the template; they won't have the new functionality until someone goes back and updates them, but they'll continue to work just fine. Kirill Lokshin 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a WikiProject banner is that someone seeking to improve that article can find valuable resources in guidelines, centralized discussion, and more, that directly lead to better articles. - This is a non sequitur. If this were the case, that person seeking to improve the article should have NO problem clicking "Show" in order to find those wikiproject banners, as others have pointed out above. Therefore, the reason this has been listed for deletion is NOT because it interferes with the alleged purpose of the wikiproject templates (to improve articles), but because it interferes with their actual purpose - to be as big and intrusive as possible, to attract as many eyeballs as possible to the wikiproject. Raul654 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm just going to be blunt, what the fuck is your problem? We could easily come up with something that both of us would be happy with, and we've got lots of people who are willing to do a lot of work to fix these banners, but because some editors don't want to deal with it, this is forced on us? The idea of the banner is to get noticed, having to click a link to see ANYTHING takes that way. I HATE fucking big project banners and when people slap banners on articles when it's not needed. Why are we fighting each other on this? People get an idea like this stuck in their head and they start thinking it's the only way to deal with the problem. On a great number of talk pages I'm seeing using the small option (which puts it along side the TOC) actually saves more room than this template. One of them had two banners, one for the Anime WikiProject and another for a Sci Fi WikiProject. I went and removed the Sci Fi banner because chances are that whole project concept won't help anyone. The Anime WikiProject, on the other hand, was what lead me to learning a lot of guidelines and getting help when I was new, and continues to do so. Yes, lets say it, most WikiProjects are retarded, but you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater with this. Don't bullshit me with this "it gets in the way of the talk page" shit when people have to scroll to the bottom for recent discussion in the first place.

I know we get so frustrated with these kinds of problems that we just want to wipe whatever caused the problem off the face of the Earth, but we can do better than that with something like this. This isn't like userboxes or fair use image debates, this is something we've hardly touched on. I hate that we got too many WikiProjects, and I really wish we could deal with that problem, but making the good ones take a hit hurts more than it helps. Like I said, this template is giving the wrong idea, an idea that can catch like fire and not because of "consensus" but because people don't know about alternatives. Ignorance is not a sign of support. I really think we can do something that would make us both happy, even if that means making some aggressive Banner guidelines or making WikiProjects have one line only shown by default (MUCH more efficient than a template nested in a template). This idea only looks good because people don't know just how much we can do better. I wanted to bring this to deletion because people like to get set on these kinds of ideas and defend them to the death, because they'll feel like giving up on it will put talk pages back to the way they were. What's wrong with doing something that saves the same (if not more) amount of space? -- Ned Scott 08:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to fully and whole heartedly agree (and did already comment on this earlier in this discussion) with Ned Scott. This is a "wipe the problem under the doormat" solution (literaly). Lets just go over the entire idea of Talkpage banners and solve the problem at the root. Some people obviously have a problem with some of it, and are annoyed, but this is NOT the way to solve the problem. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just came across this template- frankly, the clutter on the talk page must be a bit intimidating for new users. I like this solution to the problem; experienced users can still access their wikiprojects, and other folks don't have to scroll past pages of banners to access the discussion. Borisblue 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's fine the way it is, although the User:Kirill_Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14 version would be even better if it's not too hard to implement. --Herald Alberich 05:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More options is good. This is not a solved problem and it is premature to delete one choice just because you personally prefer others. I happen to like Kirill's ideas but deciding on a solution is going to take time and discussion and experience with all the alternatives. Trying to delete one you don't like is short-circuiting the Wikipedia way of developing consensus. --Ideogram 06:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely. Really, what I think we should do is finagle a new policy to ban Wikiprojects from putting these templates on talk pages in general (it's just them marking their territory... we've got backyards for that ;P)... but I doubt it'd be a popular effort. This is a start. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I support the basic idea here. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea is not what's being debated here, we all pretty much agree on cleaning up those horrible messes. Please, take the time to actually read the deletion nomination before commenting. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's fine, for now. PhoenixTwo 07:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Talkpages are for editors to discuss an article, not for WikiProject recruitment drives. This template was very much needed in order to reduce clutter on pages that had multiple WikiProjects all taking up screen real estate. People only really need to be informed which WikiProject is involved with an article once -- they shouldn't have to scroll past all the WikiProject billboards everytime they want to post something to the talkpage. --El on ka 08:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have a problem with the assessment ratings and such being hidden by default. Not only does it reduce talk page clutter, it's a great way to group related templates together. – Lantoka (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought the WikiProject templates were mainly supposed to keep track of what pages were part of the WikiProjects. Kirill's proposition should be implemented, as it seems as a bit of a middle-ground in this debate. Jon Harald Søby 10:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an excellent idea. It helps 1) preserve talk pages for um, talking. B) minimizes the non-talk clutter. 3) Still allows full view of the various wikiproject ratings and whatnot. First {{ArticleHistory}}, now this. Talk pages everywhere will rejoice! — MrDolomite • Talk 10:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and alter per fmmarianicolon. The alternative version is much preferable. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Templates in a template is a bad idea. Much better to add a "small" feature and use it. Thinking twice before adding a banner doesn't hurt either. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem either if we chose to give the banners a more consistent layout and/or added a feature that automatically shrunk banners to "small" if more than two banners exist on a talk page. Anyway, hiding the banners away won't help slow dial-up connections, and if the banners are to be deleted altogether, that will be the end of the quality assessment programme. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I think this is a good idea. It cleans up the information and still makes it available. Remember 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. — Deckill er 19:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and replace with Lokshin's version. I wasn't here during the userbox war, but I think if we've learned something from it, it is that we need to talk it out instead of deleting everything. Xiner (talk, email) 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People arguing to delete the template keep saying that it defeats the purpose of the WikiProject templates. The "purpose" of those templates varies widely, from what I can see, sometimes being helpful and sometimes being solely an ad for the project. The problem is that, one after the other, the growth of templates actively interferes with people reading the talk pages. If we want to edit this to still include the name of the individual projects, that would be a helpful edit (per Reaper X's suggestion, above). --lquilter 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To anyone who read my little rants, my apologies for losing myself there. Sometimes on Wikipedia we see some very drastic, landslide-ish community swings, where we have gotten so frustrated with something, that a good number of Wikipedians seem to turn into an angry mob. Hopefully that won't actually happen, but it does sometimes seem that way in these recent discussions, which lead to my nomination of this template.

From what I'm reading with recent comments, it's starting to look like many of us are not actually disagreeing with each other. Everyone seems to be fine with keeping the template and updating it in some way to at least show the names, etc. While I don't think it's ideal, it's better than a total "hide and forget" method, and doesn't seem to close the door on alternative options that we might find in the future. More aggressive guidelines (so far this seems to be all we have on the topic) would also help, since these banners never really had strong guidance to begin with. -- Ned Scott 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone seen Kirill Lokshin's template with multiple boxes? Very nice, this was my suggestion earlier. It doesnt quite shove the WikiProjects in a drawer, but it does hide the pictures and all the filler talk, while at the same time getting the WikiProjects name out there. I think it is a nice comprimise between saving space on talk pages, and getting a WikiProject out there, which is what I see as most of the debate here. -- Reaper X 21:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a good way not to clog up talk pages for articles under the scope of many wikiprojects. ~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: when I first saw this I thought it was a great idea. It pushes the template aside to make a little extra room or actual talk, and it's not exactly that much effort to click the "show" button. No harm done with this template.--Wizardman 22:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with modifications. I like User:Reaper X's suggestion. GChriss <always listening><c> 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; not the best looking template at the moment, but a good idea in principle. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 23:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree with the idea in principle, but that's not what's being debated. No matter what happens here, we will be cleaning up talk pages so we don't have these kinds of messes. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong comment: Please do not make generalizations about what "we all" agree with. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said "majority" or something to that extent. It seems most of us want to reduce talk page clutter and make the talk pages more usable, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a place to discuss talkpage banner issues in general? To be honest I would prefer no banners on talkpages, because talkpages are solely for talk. All banners are basically advertising; they serve the needs of the people placing them and not the people reading them. --Ideogram 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPT, although it doesn't see a lot of activity. -- Ned Scott 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no harm from using it, if one prefers small versions, just use the small. Personally I'd prefer merging this with small in some way, so the template would resemble horizontal userbox series...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. With the proliferation of more and more WikiProjects, this is a necessary bit of clutter reduction. This should be made standard across all articles. — Brian (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to actually deal with the fact that we have so many pointless WikiProjects? What happens when this groups a useful WikiProject in with the pointless ones? -- Ned Scott 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Haikur says lower on this page "If we can't turn back the clock and delete the banners then hiding them seems like the next best thing." So by all means, if you somehow suceed in turning back the clock and fixing the problems with the wikiproject templates (specifically, that there are too many of them, almost all of which are used gratitiously) then we should revisit this issue. Until then, however, the throw-them-in-a-drawer solution is the best one we have. Raul654 15:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we have to turn back the clock? I've removed many needless banners and I've taken many needless WikiProjects to WP:MFD. Considering this template and the discussions around it have been the first major attempt to address the problem, I don't see how you think it's the only one that will work. We need to fix the problem, and I don't like seeing the clutter any more than you do, but this template is sloppy. WikiProjects have not been given the chance to reform WikiProject banners because many of them are not aware there is a problem. You will have hundreds of volunteers to fix this problem, easily, if we even had something like better guidelines. Let me make it very clear, I only want to protect the banners of projects where the banner makes sense to be on that given talk page. I'm not here to defend something like WikiProject Hats tagging every article about someone who once wore a hat, or needless child projects like the South CA one dual tagging articles with the CA WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason why we should delete it - it serves its purpose as showing that an article is within the scope of multiple Wiki projects. However, this template can be further improved, e.g., by showing the names of the projects without needing to click on "show". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raphaelmak (talk • contribs) 07:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It's bad enough that WikiProject banners are located on talk pages when they have nothing to do with discussing how to improve the article; the very least we can demand is that their clutter be reduced this way. —An gr 09:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I appreciate that some WikiProjects may be using banners fruitfully, notably WP:MILHIST, but in most cases they just seem like useless clutter which doesn't lead to any article improvement. If we can't turn back the clock and delete the banners then hiding them seems like the next best thing. Haukur 10:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – neatens up the talk page. Some articles are part of many projects. The talk page is meant for talk. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Project banners are needed in order to maintain project statistics among other things. On the other hand, too many banners simply makes the talk page a mess. The hide/show function of this template is just a perfect way to balance. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep yes talk pages are for talk, this helps clean it up. Especially when there are countless wikiprojects that the article belongs to. ~ Arjun 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It's a very ueful templte, so I don't see the reason for its deletion. It helps to oranize a talk page and avoid it looks too loaded. Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete or radically fix it: This thing is a dreadful solution to a problem not even everyone concedes is a problem, given that the "pagedown" button is rather easy to use and __TOC__ and various ToC-related templates are available, and the "small" option can be built into all of the WikiProject tags, and... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overarching comment: Talk page banners, including WikiProject ones, have (and for a very long time have had) broad community consensus. Given that consensus can change, if those concerned with talk page "clutter" find it to be a serious issue, the issue should be brought up at the Village Pump for much broader discussion and solution-finding. This anti-WikiProject, header-eating template, which tries to unilaterally impose a throw-it-all-in-the-back-of-the-closet "solution", is unbelieveably inappropriate. It's downright unWikipedian. Policy is not made by creating "clever" templates that undermine the work of others. It is made by discussion and compromise and hard work to come to a balance, and that usually takes place at VP for something of this scale. This template ought to be deleted, not only because it is injurious and one-sided, but because its effective actual function is to avoid the consensus-changing process and undermine already-established consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient attempt to solve what is a real problem. If this template survives this TfD (as appears likely), the survival in itself should not be taken as consensus to roll this out – that would be clearly inappropriate while flaws remain.--cj | talk 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I think the fact that it's virtually a landslide keep shows that most people think this template should be rolled out everywhere, because Wikiproject spamvertising has reached a critical mass such that it is starting to seriously irritate people. At the same time, the reasons given for opposition are contradictory, and generally have very little evidence to support them. Raul654 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I keep pointing out, in my original deletion nomination I stated that something like one of Kirill's alternatives would be far more desired, and many Keep supporters are showing a preference for this as well. If you want to just count votes blindly then you might have a point, but thankfully that's not how we do things on Wikipedia. I should not have to say this to someone like you who knows the in's and out's of Wikipedia. Also, to be clear, we are only talking about crowded talk pages, not just any situation where there is more than one WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or radically fix it Talkpage clutter can be dealt with. Some projects already have joined templates. The small option can be forced by concensus. Let us not undermine the underlying idea of the banners. Quality assesment! (Yes, some Pojects have not got the hang of it, but a good number do have a serious focus on that). With the assessment follows improvement. Agathoclea 00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously needed to clean up all these bannners. How to best fix it up is a discussion for the template talk page, not for here. Sandstein 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Talk:Thrasybulus. --Robth^Talk 06:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's a good start to a solution to the problem, I don't think it renders the banners redundant at all. I do feel it could be improved, and I'm sure it will be! - Phorque 13:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there are better alternatives is the very reason this is up for TfD.. -- Ned Scott 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we need more solutions like this. —Pengo 14:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, people, please actually read the deletion nomination. No one seems to object to the basic idea, but mass adding this template is a waste of our time and resources because we will have to update each and every talk page when we improve the template (which is no different than if it is a new template). -- Ned Scott 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment, of course, assumes we will be modifying the template. Raul654 23:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's pretty safe to assume that the template will be kept and later modified from people's reactions (on both "sides"). I did not realize you had an objection to that as well. -- Ned Scott 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each page will be automatically updated. I don't think we had to update each and every page when this template was edited to show it was nominated for deletion. Funpika 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean for support for things like what Kirill has shown us, showing at least the names at top level, or other kind of improvements, that would require some sort of parameter being set. No one has raised any objections to such suggestions, and it's supported by many keeps and deletes, including myself. -- Ned Scott 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've disliked this from the start (too much of a knee-jerk reaction to the header problem), but I could see keeping the template if it incorporated the names of the Wikiprojects kind of like Reaper X wrote above. Teemu08 01:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is by far the best solution that has yet been provided to the ever-growing problem of, and it will become an increasingly necessary solution as the number of WikiProjects continues to grow. Considering that there are no limitations on how many WikiProjects need exist at any time, within a few years, I won't be surprised to see 20-30 WikiProject banners on a certain Talk page; when that happens, this banner will be crucial, as the only viable alternative to simply excluding certain WikiProjects from using their banners on such pages. This is a superb compromise, and has the huge advantage of not distorting or bloating the Talk pages in any way, while still providing an easy way for interested parties to check out the full information. In fact, I'd say that this is possibly the best use of the "Hide" feature on Wikipedia that's yet been proposed. Moreover, even if you don't think this option works well on some pages, arguing to delete it is denying other editors who disagree the right to use it on the pages they frequent, if they see it as useful or necessary. That's hardly fair; just don't use it on Talk pages where most editors dislike it, and do use it on ones where most editors find it useful. It's that simple. It's an option. And it happens to be a fantastic one. Look at the value it provides to the accessibility of pages like Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Jesus, for example, which used to be bloated monstrosities of clashing WikiProjects, ToCs, talk headers, etc. -Silence 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were objections to the better alternatives being presented I might see your point, but so far I haven't really seen any (Raul might, it's hard to tell from his above comment). Deletion is not required, and I doubt we will be deleting the template at this stage, but my thinking was that we needed to stop the mass-application of this template since it was premature. Even if the template was updated it would still require that each talk page be modified (to support the updates), which at that point is no different than making it a new template. At the time I thought that a TfD was the best way to do that (now I'm not so sure), but it was not an attempt to force someone to do something they objected to. As editors I'm surprised that anyone could think of this version of the template as good, let alone the best. This kind of "fix" would never fly in the article namespace, because it's just a sloppy band aid. No major attempt has been done to address the real issues, which wouldn't just fix banners but also make WikiProjects far more useful and remove the unneeded ones. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I object to the alternatives, particularly the ones that still allow one line (or more) per wikiproject by default. Also, I second Silence's observation that in a few years time, we could be looking at 30 or more of these per talk page. Case and point Raul654 02:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That seems a bit needless for you to even object to that. Regardless, this TfD is showing strong support, dare I say the C word, for alternatives. One idea supports stopping the 30 templates from being added or even created, your idea simply hides them. ... -- Ned Scott 07:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, a few people here (out of the vastly larger number of people) have said they prefer an alternative. The vast majority have not. Saying there is support for the alternative by assuming that vast majority supports you is wrong. Instead, based on the actual comments here (rather than the optimisic "well-they didn't-object-so-they-must-support-me" reading you are putting into it), it appears there is indeed consensus to keep the template exactly as it is now.
      - As to my objections to the alternatives that allow one line per wikiproject, I object to them because they are not scalable, when we consider the current trends (towards ever more wikiprojects). One project per line sounds great when you are talking about 2-3 wikiproject per talk page. It doesn't sound so hot when you are talking about 20. Raul654 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Having more than, say.. three projects for a single article IS the problem. What's better, not having 20 banners or hiding 20 banners? -- Ned Scott 07:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Should we have a review of who appears to be supporting what? Maybe a wider RfC on the whole issue so people are clear? Many people are commenting on the concept of cleaning up talk pages rather than the specific template itself, others don't even give a reason (not a vote, remember?). We do not do these things by numbers and someone like you should know that. It's a sad day when Raul654 resorts to vote counting to get his way. It should not matter how many people are on one "side" or another, what matters is the logic raised and the reasons behind them. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The clear consensus here is that talk pages should be clutter free. The template does this as-is. The alternatives do not (or, at best, they do it less so). Ipso facto, people who support less clutter and have not explicitely supported the alternative support the template as-is. I find it rather galling, actually - first you nominate the article for deletion, then when it becomes clear that the vast majority of people disagree with you and want the template kept, you attempt to twist a clear 'keep' result in order to claim consensus to reshape the template into something you find more agreeable. I'm sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.
        
        As to the logic behind the comments - yes, reducing the number of wikiproject tags on a talk page is preferable to hiding them. However, this is a pie-in-the-sky argument, as Haikur has already pointed out. There is no evidence to date to show that there is any dimunation in the trend towards more wikiprojects and more tags, so using this patently unrealistic assumption to guide our actions is an extremely bad idea. Raul654 08:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I nominated this template for deletion because as is it is a stupid idea and a sloppy fix (lets ignore the problem instead of dealing with it, great idea..). I never cared if the document was technically deleted or not, I just wanted to make sure we didn't use "hide-and-~~delete~~". Apparently that's somehow not clear to you in my deletion nomination.. Believe me, I'd still much rather just delete this thing and start fresh, so don't think I'm happy or that I feel like I'm getting "my way", but I do find the compromises offered to be acceptable. Forgive me if I accept defeat but try to find the good in it. -- Ned Scott 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oops, meant to say "Hide and forget". -- Ned Scott 08:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why not do both? That is, why not attempt to get rid of gratitious wikiprojects and wikiproject-tagging, while at the same time using this template? I don't expect the former to be all that successful, but it's worth a try. At the same time, I see no reason why we shouldn't proceed in parallel with the latter. You keep presenting these ideas as if they are mutually exclusive. Doing so creates a false dilemma. Raul654 09:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you misunderstand me if that's what you think. Regardless of banner issues or this template's existence, people will be working to improve and shape our concept of WikiProjects as powerful and useful tools. -- Ned Scott 12:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restated: Strong keep, without modification. Stengthening and clarifying my previous. I read the above discussion differently than Ned. I see significant support for allowing editors who want this template to use it just as it is and without modification. The opposite view that the template should be deleted unless modified has been expressed by Ned and a few others. My views are 100% consistent with those recently expressed by Silence and Raul654. Now can we agree to remove the deletion notice from the template? It is distracting, unnecessary, and ugly. --HailFire 08:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, I never said that the support was for "deleted unless modified", but that a significant portion of people specifically stated that it was desirable or not something they objected to. At face value this is about 30-40 percent, and I'm very interested in knowing what some of the others think that didn't go into details (as in, would they object to or even prefer one of the proposed alternatives, etc).
- It is clear that the template isn't going to be deleted. If we could move this to some form of structured RfC or something, that might be a better use of our time than trying to guess what people might have meant. -- Ned Scott 08:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's good to know what articles are in which Wikiproject, but I agree that it's best to tidy up the talk pages with multiple banners. Deleting the banners just covers a problem that was never fixed. Acalamari 16:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several pages have too many banners, so using this could shorten the talk page for some.--Ac1983fan 03:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template helps in keeping talk pages in order. No reason to delete.--Jersey Devil 06:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no problem with "shoving" the WikiProject banners into a collapsable/expandable menu. It's endlessly cleaner. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer the use of User:Kirill_Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14, however. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really see why to delete this template. IMO it works fine.--Yannismarou 13:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A good reason is because the template helps to make the talk page smaller. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Something needs to be done to reduce talk page clutter. It's gotten really ridiculous on many biographies. Jokestress 00:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or modify. The banners are not rendered useless. However, it would be nice to have a parameter in it to decide if there was a parameter to determine if the templates are hidden or shown by default. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesse Viviano (talk • contribs) 04:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep. Talk page clutter is out of control. Clicking the word "show" is not a difficult task. Italiavivi 14:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful solution to problem, although per other users, I think User:Kirill_Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14 would be even better. Bob talk 20:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need more ideas like this. Khoi khoi 21:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we might need more ideas like this, but that doesn't mean we need this particular flawed idea. The multi-banner template proposed above does the same thing better. John Carter 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's unlikely that Wikiprojects are going to recruit the kind of specialized and capable editors they want from pages on topics so broad that they have a large number of banners on them anyway (e.g., Newton, Einstein, Copernicus). Recruitment is more likely to occur when someone clicks on some minor interest that falls into one Project's niche (or one of a small few). I like the 'small' option also. Why not allow for some variety? There should be a limit on its use, of course (say, minimum five projects?). KSchutte 00:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd say a better solution would be to use CSS to reduce those WP banners in size. >Radiant< 11:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without reading all the above (so this may have been said before) one problem with this template is that by hiding {{WPBiography}} the 'living person' warning text also gets hidden. I don't want this to result in editors choosing to use {{Blp}} and {{WPBiography}} or (worse for WikiProject Biography) not using WPBio at all. This template is also likely to complicate bot operations considerably: my plugin for instance doesn't know anything about this template. I'm also inclined to think that the banners need to be visible to have any impact. That said, I perfectly respect the right of anti-banner editors to not have to see them. Couldn't we use some div code or something so that folks who are that way inclined can just turn the banners off?. --kingboyk 16:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it needs modifications Half-Blood Auror 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not so difficult to scroll down past the banners that we have to resort to conglomerating them together. There isn't a serious bannercruft problem, and the solution is simply rather ugly. Thanatosimii 20:08, 26 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Gliders

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A two-link template. Not useful in navigation; better off putting "See also" on both articles instead of using a template.. --Hbdragon88 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, since there's only two. Sometimes you need a nav template, sometimes ya don't. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very similar to many other templates at WP:AIRCRAFT. However, the current status, as stated in the nom, it only has 2 entires. If the group only has 2 entries, the other should be listed in a see also section. Should the category expand for navigation, I would have no problem keeping the template. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too little information for a template.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 14:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Not very useful, basically a complicated "See also" section. John Reaves (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:sockpuppet

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep as users sole edits were trolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Used to tag pages as belonging to someone else, 'delete per WP:NPOV since user tagging is cannot fully know who the account belongs to. Jim Pooele 01:29, 19 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:aboutUs

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete (WP:SNOW). kingboyk 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links/links to AboutUs would not comply with WP:EL - AboutUs is not a stable wikipedia and not a reliable source. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikis should be assumed incredibly unreliable unless otherwise proven. -Amarkov moo! 01:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not something someone made up. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Doesn't comply with guidelines. Canadianshoper 03:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Plus, it isn't actually used anywhere. John Reaves (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2007 (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 page.