Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 2 September 4 >

September 3

[edit]

Template:Skymine

[edit]
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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only ever used on one article, written by the person who applied it, referring to an essay by the same person. The concept behind it is maybe valid but not, as far as I know, widely known under that name (instead Blue Sky Mine is a song), a more generic template would suffice. For information the article using it was Social identity. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 3 September 2009 (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:Do Not Adjust Your Set

[edit]
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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Do Not Adjust Your Set (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. The show and all actors are already named and linked on the individual actor articles. Garion96 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is of importance. I just don't find it important enough to warrant a huge template on the bottom of each article. The show is already mentioned on all the articles with a link to the show. Why is this template so necessary? Especially when you look at the Michael Palin article there really are too many templates there. Garion96 (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2009 (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:Wikipedia-Books

[edit]
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 keep for now, and discussion can continue in another venue. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia-Books (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template links to content that is not part of the encyclopedia, WP books are unregulated and unmaintained content hosted in project space. They do not follow our quality standards, and may not be neutral in their organization. This is also largely redundant to our content presentation, the article organization, the see also sections, our lists, templates, etc. We shouldn't confuse readers with more pages to look at, which probably won't fulfill their expectations, and keep a separation between the encyclopedia and the rest, as per WP:SELFREF. Cenarium (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reading order is intrinsically, necessarily biased, and thus linking to such constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV (while lists can most of the time be organized in an objective order, and when subjective, they contain content themselves, and are not simply a collection of links, so the organization can be justified by the content organization within). I have no objection to WP books, but we shouldn't confuse them with our encyclopedia. Users interested in WP books can search them from the project page, or create some themselves. Cenarium (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no such search function. Users can browse from the WPBooks project page. I also think that the WPBooks categorization is broken currently, which also hampers findability. Removing this template will effectively separate browsing from articles to WPBooks. I hope there aren't too many direct article links to a WPBook page, as those will eventually need to be deleted as well. Parkerdr (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was one at some point of time, but I may have imagined it. I added it now, at Wikipedia:Books. Cenarium (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were talking about searching from the WikiProject page, so that's where I looked without success. You added the search box to the "root" page (Wikipedia:Books). I was/am confused.
I use sometimes project for Wikipedia, I meant Wikipedia:Books, sorry for the confusion. Cenarium (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate use in encyclopaedia space if nominators concerns are considered valid - which broadly they seem to be. However this would be best discussed elsewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - treated as a sister project there is no reason for WP:Books to be any different form another sister project. If someone makes a Wikipedia-Book called "The True Name OF Macedonia" then it would not be linked to unless it was notable in its own right and then with an external link. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of this template, perhaps I can address some of the nom's concerns and provide some insight as to why it was created in the first place. Note that I was not notified of this TfD...
    This template was created to standardize the formatting of wikilinks to book subpages of Wikipedia:Books. As such, this template is intended to be used only in the See also section of an article, on a category page, etc. When the template is used in the See also section it functions similarly to {{Portal}}, which is also "content hosted in project space".
    Using Wikipedia:Books/Internet as an example, I fail to see how "books" such as this would be in conflict with Wikipedia's quality standards or not be neutral in their organization. These "books" follow the outline of the parent article, in this case Internet, so the argument that these "books" somehow violate WP:NPOV makes no sense at all.
    Wikipedia:Books is not "...largely redundant to our content presentation"; per WP:CLN "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists (including embedded lists, like lists included in See also sections), and Navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems (see WP:LISTS, WP:CAT, and WP:NAV)."
    I do not think WP:SELFREF is an issue here at all; if it were, we should also not be wikilinking to portals and such or using the {{portal}} template in the See also sections of articles. Portals too are technically "not part of the encyclopedia", but both portals and books are user-created and maintained; how well they are maintained is really up to individual editors. As a general rule, if you want to improve something, you want to make it more visible, not less, so more people will find it and make use of it. Deletion of this template would make it more difficult for editors and readers to find, expand, and maintain Wikipedia:Books as it would make it less visible.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Portals are not hosted in project (wikipedia) space but portal space, and most (but not all) are part of the encyclopedia, like categories and templates. WP books may not be neutral due to improper weighting and omissions, ex. Wikipedia:Books/Science, and bias when choosing key concepts, ex. Wikipedia:Books/Marketing. The guideline your refer to mentions the organizational methods cited there. We are free to use others outside the encyclopedia, but they should be approved if incorporated or linked in articles. Portals are long established, but in contrast there's never been a ratification process for books as encyclopedia content, there's no established guideline or regulation of those. On the contrary, we should not direct users to WP books in articles, we should focus on the improvement of the encyclopedia. It's like outlines, they are a waste of resources to develop and maintain, add almost nothing to existing content and lose our readers. WP books are good to show examples of WP books for users using the tool, but shouldn't be confused as encyclopedia content, and empirical evidence shows that inexperienced users are puzzled as to what to do with them. Special:Books is linked from the sidebar for registered users, so visible enough. Since they have not been ratified as part of the encyclopedia, WP:SELFREF applies. They cannot be considered as sister project either, only those listed here are. Cenarium (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Is it possible to modify this template to use similar CSS attributes as the ones used on {{Selfref}}?. Then it can still be used here, but it is hidden on mirrors of Wikipedia. That would solve the WP:SELFREF issue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the books feature here is very poorly thought out with little to no regulations. This template could easily be used to promote POV ridden books, which goes against one of our core content policies. We have templates informing readers that material is located on sister sites, but each of these has a well-developed system of policies, which Wikipedia Books lacks. Perhaps after Wikipedia Books takes hold and becomes quasi-reliable we can link to it but before it proves itself worthy we shouldn't link to it in our main articles. ThemFromSpace 22:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as I am one of the developers of the book tool. Some suggestions regarding issues brought up in this discussion:
    • WP books should become part of the encyclopedia, WP books should be regulated and maintained content. They should follow (yet to define) quality standards, and should be neutral and especially useful in their organization. We need to work on this together and I invite you to join the WikiProject Wikipedia-Books.
    • If inexperienced readers are really puzzled as what to do with WP Books we need to improve their description. E.g. Template:Saved book currently features a misleading text, as it says: This is a Wikipedia book, a user-generated collection of Wikipedia articles that can be easily saved, printed, and ordered as a printed book. Books are not a part of the encyclopedia proper. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia, see our introduction. What refers user generated to in this context? Pages listed at WP Books should either be maintained by the community and follow some quality standards or otherwise have an appropriate maintenance notice. Books should be part of the encyclopedic proper just as lists or categories are (see above). The hint how to contribute to the project is inappropriate as it does not help to further describe what books are. I think this can be improved easily.
    • WP:CLN should mention WP Books --He!ko (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue I agree with the nom that the books project/feature has problems (e.g. they should be called "article collections" (or whatever) rather than "books" since that term can be confusing in the context of an encyclopedia), but TfD is really the wrong venue for a general discussion of how and under what circumstances "books" should be linked to from article-space; the Village Pump would be more appropriate, imo. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This project is still relatively young, and I don't think we should undercut it by deleting its templates unless there is a strong consensus that the specific template is bad or the project is a failure. The template itself seems reasonable for the project, and I'm not sensing a consensus that the project itself is a bust, so I think the templates should be left in place until the project can prove itself one way or the other. --RL0919 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_3&oldid=1086089583"