Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 11

< May 10	May 12 >

May 11

Template:It's Alive!

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.--Wizardman 04:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no one use this for reason. 70.50.36.65 20:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphan. ST47Talk 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too few links; articles already link to each other. –Pomte 04:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too small to be useful, can just as well be fully integrated into the article text. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orphaned, and NRV, and too small. Daniel 5127 03:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheDJ. One 02:41, 18 May 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:Indonesia Presidents

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 No Consensus. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to use it anyway. 70.50.36.65 20:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now used on the 6 articles linked to from it. ST47Talk 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant with {{succession box}}. The latter has more information (in office period) than just grouping with color and flag. — Indon (reply) — 07:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Indon. (Caniago 10:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep the use of one infobox over another is an editorial dispute, which should not be settled by deleting one of the templates before the dispute is settled. Nardman1 21:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nardman1 Bulldog123 00:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's argument seems to hinge on the fact that Indonesia has had only six presidents, whereas most countries using the term "president" [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] have had many more office-holders than that... probably systemic bias. — CharlotteWebb 16:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In use. Dfrg.msc 00:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dfrg.msc. One 02:40, 18 May 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:Criticism-section

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 no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections do not violate any policies or style guides, and this template may, in fact, encourage POV editing via the removal of criticism from articles that require it. A bad idea - issues that would require this template need discussion at the relevant talk page, not a throwaway template. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased keep (I created the template, based on the {{trivia}} template) - Criticism sections are almost always bad, as the policy and guideline pages linked from the template explain (Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fairness of tone, Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism in a "Criticism" section). Quarantining all of an article's criticism into a single section leaves the rest of the article overly positive, and is simply an unbalanced, biased writing style. The claim that this template would remove criticism from articles is baseless. It explicitly says to move the criticism into the appropriate sections.
And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.
— Jimbo Wales
— Omegatron 19:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but alter - Ok, coming clean first - I was informed of this by Omegatron as he knows I am one of those who severely dislikes criticism sections and articles. Now, onto why I think it should be kept but altered: Whilst criticism sections are not against policy explicitly, I would say that overall our policies and guidelines lead an editor to the conclusion that criticism sections should be avoided in most cases. This template should be kept and reworded slightly to something like 'This article contains a criticism section. This is often an unbalanced article structure and can lead to a low quality article. Content in this section should be presented in a neutral, objective manner. A good solution is to integrate the information into more appropriate areas of the article, removing the criticism section.'. This way we cover both sides of the camp but give indication towards the fact that our policies and guidelines do favour their removal. Also, to confim what Omegatron has said, the amount of stupid revert warring that goes on in these sections is far higher than any other section that I have seen on the site. Removing them leads to a much more stable article in general (an example being the PETA article, which suffered a huge amount more nonsense than it does now when it had such a section, and also the Mozilla Firefox article)-Localzuk^(talk) 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. I picked Localzuk to poke because we disagree about PETA, but have always agreed on the talk page that confining all the criticism to a single section is the wrong way to organize content. Sometimes criticism sections are ok. This template is for the ones that aren't. By all means edit the template if you see problems with the current wording; it's just a first attempt. — Omegatron 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If you establish a consensus that criticism sections are always the wrong way to organize data, then this can be recreated, but there is no such consensus now. They should be avoided in general, certainly, but cleanup templates should only be used when the problem they call attention to is always a problem which should be fixed. -Amarkov moo! 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your stance. There will never be a consensus that criticism sections are always wrong, because that's not true. But if you agree that they should be avoided "in general, certainly", then you agree that we should have a template to call attention to the ones that need fixing. — Omegatron 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivia sections are 'bad in general' but there isn't consensus to remove all of them - because in some cases they are ok. But we still have a template for saying 'This page has a trivia section.. blah...'.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then maybe that template should be deleted too, if it says that the trivia section must be removed. -Amarkov moo! 17:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah but this template doesn't say it must be removed - it says 'should'. Also, as omegatron mentions, people don't have to use the template - but that is simply an editorial decision.-Localzuk^(talk) 09:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In theory, you're right, but in practice, people who remove maitenance tags without fixing the thing that caused them to get put on are usually reverted, even if they don't think there needs to be a change. -Amarkov moo! 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as stated by Localzuk. ResurgamII 14:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if we are going to have cleanup templates we might as well have this one; the problem it indicates is relatively serious. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jeff. I am concerned that it will be interpreted as instructions to remove information, even if it is well-referenced. Possibly this template could be re-written to say "this article is the criticism section (i.e. POV fork) of another article and its content should be merged back...". — CharlotteWebb 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't for criticism articles; it's for criticism sections.
- If you are concerned that the template encourages removal of content from those sections, then it should be reworded, not deleted. (Have you read it?) — Omegatron 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note, I have re-worded it. Of course, you will probably notice that before anyone else does. — CharlotteWebb 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least cleanup so as not to imply that all criticism sections are illegitimate (which it currently does). As noted above, criticism sections are often a bad idea, but not always. SnowFire 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Criticism essay remains an essay precisely because there is no consensus that Criticism sections are bad; many articles have them, including featured articles (like the recently promoted Atheism). If you have a problem with a particular criticism section, take it to that article's talk page. Slapping on a template will result in a guaranteed revert by those editors who have already come to a consensus on the article's structure (at least it will on any article that I work on, I promise). Slap-on templates should be restricted for policy violations that must be cleaned up, like NPOV/lack of sources/etc., not for style preferences. - Merzbow 01:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the "slap-on" cleanup templates use wording like "may", "consider", or "please discuss". This isn't any different. In the majority of cases, Criticism sections are bad, as shown by the guideline and policy pages I've linked to. For the ones that aren't, don't put a template in it. If someone does put a template in it, and other editors think the section should stay, they can discuss it and then remove the template. — Omegatron 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Omegatron & Localzuk - This is just like a cleanup banner but more specific and helps direct the editors for article improvement. If it is not appropriate for the article, someone will remove it or move it to the talk page (perhaps it could be written so that it makes sense to add it to the talk page). Morphh ^(talk) 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, on places where someone puts up a criticism section where one was not part of the consensus, which is subsequently removed, you get an edit flame war about how the article editors are "trying to hide things" being highlighted in the credit. Such circumstances, especially on emotionally volatile pages such as religions/philosophies/political views are already easily set-off, but if a clean article structure that integrates criticisms into more fact-oriented referential text starts having this conversation, there's usually little value that ensues, other than ideological positioning and, often, ad-hominem. That's not to say your point is way off or anything, just that the criticism section section being highlighted is, in itself, sort of volatile. --Christian Edward Gruber 14:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While any attention to a criticism section is rife with potential for conflict, I think that there is a strong case against the use of criticism sections by default (see comments about Jimmy Wales' comments for instance). Sometimes they are necessary for flow, or in cases where critique is a commonly accepted practice (such as art reception, etc.). I would be ok with a mild rewrite, so long as it keeps the tone of encouraging an alternative structure to a called-out criticism section. I would also be comfortable (per Morphh) in rewording it so as to be suitable to add to a talk page, rather than the page. --Christian Edward Gruber 14:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More Good than Harm. Dfrg.msc 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Very often criticism sections are the best way to organize data and no one has pointed to any policy that actually says they are bad. JoshuaZ 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the template author's intentions are no doubt good, this does seem to get used as a "no material that doesn't portray the article's subject in a positive light, please" template. So, yes, delete per nom. -- Schneelocke 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples? It was just created two weeks ago. — Omegatron 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What Schneelocke says. Odd nature 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is this, PC-pedia? Criticisms are necessary on many topics, and having such a section does not inherently or inevitably or invariably doom the article to having a bias. Additionally, criticism sections are no more a troll magnet than are any criticisms carefully interwoven or incorporated throughout the article. If there is a criticism section on any topic that someone holds dear, they are going to pitch hissy fit no matter what. Of course, we could do away with any criticism entirely -- oh, wait, then we'd be Conservapedia. Jim62sch 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does the template say to remove criticism from the article? — Omegatron 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This template will most likely be used by apologists of controversial figures to push their (sometimes) extremist agendas on Wikipedia. Worse, I can even see Neo-Nazis using this template on certain articles pertaining to them and their beliefs which would contain a criticism section. Arbiteroftruth 21:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Godwin. :-) Here are some examples of articles about Neo-Nazi groups, to use your own example:
How many of these articles have Criticism sections? Does the lack of a Criticism section make these articles apologetic for Neo-Nazism? Does it make us sound like Wikipedia endorses these beliefs? Or are the articles just neutral, factual accounts of an organization? Should I take anything negative about these groups and put it all in a single section so that most of the article's sections are only about positive things? — Omegatron 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Criticism sections serve a useful purpose, in my opinion, and we should not be trying to do away with sourced criticism when it wouldn't comfortably fit elsewhere in an article. This is prone to abuse, and good for imposing one's POV on an article (in a handy little template!) Besides, we have entire articles called "Criticism of ..." I feel we'd have to have a concensus to get rid of those first before we could have this. Grand master ka 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Omegatron has suggested me on the talk page that I should feel free to edit the template if a way exists to avoid some of the aspersions being cast. If the template was kept, I'd suggest a wording along the lines of

An editor has suggested that this article's Criticism or Controversy section may be inappropriate. Consider integrating this section's content into the article as a whole while observing a neutral point of view.

This would make it clear that a specific editor feels that this criticism section is a bad idea, and not imply that all in general are bad. It'd also hopefully encourage discussion on the talk page. However, I still favor deletion as noted above, just to be clear. SnowFire 03:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea. I've reworded it. — Omegatron 13:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although each of us might find fault with some portion of the description under the template, the tag itself is unobjectionable, and addresses a real problem. Its phrased in a way that doesn't imply that all controversy sections are bad (though I happen to believe they are, since they attract trolls and reflect bad writing style). It is debatable whether in principle controversy sections violate NPOV, but in practice they certainly do invite trolling. I see the controversy sections like trivia sections: while not strictly verboten, they are best incorporated into the rest of the article. Djcastel 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have re-written this template and given it a less angry salad appearance and wording which I feel will be more conducive to delicate rearrangement rather than wanton blanking of sections which editors may have labored for months on. — CharlotteWebb 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've changed it to a merge template, which is usually used for merging content from one article to another. I like the SnowFire-inspired version better. — Omegatron 18:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This template is not for removing criticism from articles. It's for moving the criticism from a single, arbitrary section out into other more appropriate sections, as recommended by policy, guideline, and Jimbo. Criticism should not be removed from articles. If you agree with this sentiment, but want the template deleted simply because it could be abused, consider this text from Templates for deletion:
If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.
— Omegatron 19:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Dfrg.msc & Djcastel — Zedla 02:17, 19 May 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:Nanomat

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! 08:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of this template have been moved to Template:Nanotech and all the articles using it have been updated. — ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 10:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Note that I removed one transclusion, there are still several links, and one transclusion from userspace. ST47Talk 23:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated/redundant/unused in mainspace. –Pomte 03:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the Nanotech navboxes, and my intention was to have a main Nanotech navbox and then separate navboxes for the subcategories, since there are certainly enough articles to merit this. Molecular nanotechnology has its own navbox, and I'm working on ones for Scanning tunneling microscopy, Nanotechnology in fiction, and Nanoelectronics (See User:Antony-22/Navboxes). Combining all of these into the main Nanotech navbox is making it very large and unwieldy - compare my old version with the new one. I do think that Nanomaterials is a separate concept from Nanotechnology as a whole, though a very significant portion of it, and in line with this scheme I believe that the separate navbox should be kept, and the merger between Template:Nanotech and Template:Nanomat should be reversed. Antony-22 01:12, 18 May 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:Afc complete

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 speedily deleted by ^demon. --ais523 16:39, 11 May 2007 (U T C)

I've moved to a shorter name at {{afc c}}, but I'm not the creator. — ALTON .ıl 05:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this to a db-author tag for speedy deletion. --Maelwys 13:07, 11 May 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:Further

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have waiting many months to know why this template has superseded {{see}}. In http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:GunnarRene#RV_request_of_.7B.7Bfurther.7D.7D & http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template_talk:See#Why, Gunnarrene has mentioned that the deprecation tagger is not responding, and is absent. I have asked posted on rfc and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Horrible_Mess, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Link, & http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Why_see_-.3E_further_information.3F all ask why is this template so much more complicated and harder to use, & why it even exists.100110100 07:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this example from the {{Further}} documentation:
```
{{Further|[[Article 1]], [[Article 2]], and [[Article Something#3|Article 3]]}}
```
How would you do this with {{See}}? Pagra shtak 14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have explained that in the links, that it's sister templates do not require explict wikilinking. Explict wikilinking makes it MUCH MORE COMPLITCATED!100110100 22:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Instead of yelling, why don't you indulge me and answer my question? Pagra shtak 03:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I anwsered your dumb question.100110100 22:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, you have not. Keep. Pagra shtak 03:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge code to {{see}}, dunno why two templates exist when they should be performing the same function. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and undeprecate {{See}}. {{See}} and {{Further}} each have their own advantages and can be used depending on the nature of the links. A lot of pages transclude each of them. Merge all suitable non-anchor uses from {{Further}} to {{See}} if this is desirable enough to not be a waste of bot activity. As an aside, I think {{See}} should be moved to {{Further2}}, then redirected to {{See also}} for intuitive reasons, but this is relatively minor. –Pomte 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the principle of least astonishment. I've never liked this level of freedom in linking in navigational templates, because it seems to always lend itself to quirky constructs like these:

For further information, see the Wikipedia article about [[Jogging]].

Self-reference, creates problems for mirror or fork sites

For further information, see [[Religion in the United States#Belief in God|Belief in God in the United States]].

no such article, though it sounds halfway plausible to some readers

For further information, please [[Adobe Flash|Click Here]].

We aren't giving out free iPods and ring tones. Also useless in a paper copy.

— CharlotteWebb 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is used all over the place and really shouldn't be deleted. If people want to bring back See as a valid option as well, I offer no opinion, but Further should remain. SnowFire 23:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's true that having flexible tools increases the potential for misuse, but it also increases the possibility for correct use in unusual circumstances. We allow people to write whatever they want in (most) articles, and then correct it if it violates policies or guidelines. I see no reason to try to prevent people from forming "quirky constructs" in a template when we don't prevent forming them in plain text. Xtifr _tälk 01:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both templates are useful in certain cases, so why delete them? -Amarkov moo! 03:46, 16 May 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:Current Big Brother series

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 —dgies^t_c 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can't be used on that many pages. we already have {{future tvshow information}} for this, which will probably suit it enough. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- it's not needed. We'd be overrun with templates if we had a separate one for each television show. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would add much clutter. Jmlk17 07:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't need it, use the generic one. ST47Talk 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — although is useful, it would definitely clutter up the page. ~Spe bi 09:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NRV X 2 Bulldog123 00:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per cattlegirl. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ask that everybody does their best to make sure that Big Brother never has a future. Stop watching that garbage! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. One 02:41, 18 May 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.