Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 18

< August 17	August 19 >

August 18

Template:Dynamic navigation noncentered

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) 02:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dynamic navigation noncentered (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, appears to be some sort of test from April 2013. Either delete or userfy. NSH002 (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as test template that should not yet be in template space, or delete if the test is over —PC -XT + 02:03, 24 August 2014 (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:Match World Cup

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) 02:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Match World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - only one link. No indication that individual seasons are notable. Fenix down (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only has one bluelink, and that is under discussion at AFD for the 2nd time. Not needed. Giant Snowman 17:29, 18 August 2014 (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:COTWs

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, but trim. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Of all the collaborations listed here, only two of them have had any activity in the last 6 months (WP:MED and WP:TAFI, of which I am a part of). My primary concern here is that we are directing potential editors to projects that have had no activity in literally years. If I were looking to join a collaboration, I would find nothing more discouraging than to discover that essentially all but a tiny percentage of the organized collaborations are inactive.

My proposal would be to delete this template, and encourage the usage of templates for specific collaborations. This would help manage the activity of collaborations (when their templates get out of date) and also bring further attention to projects that are active. Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and prune down to those that have had relatively recent activity. Also retain the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement link, which is an active WikiProject and the Wikipedia:Inactive collaborations link in the template, which is quite useful in that it links to many collaboration pages, many of which are marked historical. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just how often would this even be used? If it's a somewhat commonly used template, then I'd be with Northamerica1000, but I can't think of any reason to keep it otherwise. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 23:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the long list of pages that use the template at: Pages that link to "Template:COTWs". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim per Northamerica1000. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 07:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

question: how many of the projects using this template are active? I would like to see this discussion revisited if the answer is less than 5. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: The only active collaborations are Today's articles for improvement and the Medicine COTM, but the Dinosaur collaboration page has a number of edits this year, inlcuding this month (keeping the GA/FA chart up to date). Together with Wikipedia:Collaborations and Wikipedia:Inactive collaborations, that's four or five links from the box, depending on whether the Dinosaur collab page is included. - Evad37 [talk] 02:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim, listing the inactive collabs at WP:Inactive collaborations. It would seem more useful to direct editors looking to collaborate to active collaborations, rather than removing this template and effectively leaving them at a dead-end (in terms of collaboration). - Evad37 [talk] 02:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Per WP:TFD#REASONS ("you should edit the template to fix its problems"), I have trimmed the template. I left Dinosaurs in there for the moment as the page is receiving non-trivial edits, but would not object to it also being removed. - Evad37 [talk] 09:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim/update - we should be keeping anything that possibly promotes collaborative editing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim/update to see if it can be effective —PC -XT + 07:18, 28 August 2014 (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:Autism cure movement

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) 02:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Autism cure movement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The topics in this template are already included in Template:Autism resources. So, it's redundant, and it's unnecessary to have a separate template for the mainstream view of autism (as opposed to, for example, the one for the self-styled "Autism rights movement," which is based on the "neurodiversity" view). Holdek (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep - This infobox serves an informative purpose as contrasting with the topics listed in Template:Autism rights movement, whereas Template:Autism resources lumps everything together. The only reason the cure movement template appears redundant with Template:Autism resources is because of Holdek's recent changes, particularly the change of title from "Autism cure and prevention topics" to "Mainstream autism topics". I believe this change should not have been executed in the first place as it creates a disparity between the title and content. Muffinator (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Autism cure and prevention topics" and "Mainstream autism topics" cover the same things. --Holdek (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, where is your reliable source saying that these are the mainstream opinions and the ones at Template:Autism rights movement are fringe? This seems to be an unnecessarily bold assertion. Second, "cure and prevention" is much more specific than "autism topics" and that is why this template exists. The difference between the two is apparent by looking at Template:Autism resources: Out of the 117 topics the template links to, only about 35 of them represent a pro-cure/prevention perspective. Although we shouldn't trust Wikipedia alone, that doesn't support the position that "pro-cure" and "mainstream" are synonymous. Muffinator (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no article about an Autism cure movement, and for good reason: the term "autism cure movement" is only used by those within the "Autism rights movement."

That movement is certainly not a mainstream one. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to call it "fringe," but it is at least "alternative," in that it contradicts the American Psychiatric Association, the World Health Organization, etc. --Holdek (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article not existing on Wikipedia is not an indication that it necessarily lacks notability, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Muffinator (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm arguing. Holdek (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment - (I'm the creator of the template back in 2006) The nominator changed the title of the template as pointed out by Muffinator to an outright ridiculous title the same day of the nomination. Wikipedia generally does not decide what is "mainstream", as that practically a POV in and of itself. There is a movement to cure Autism as there is a movement brushing against it (for varying reasons) - that's the context here. As for whether the template itself is still needed or should be merged/changed... I'll leave that up to others. However, since this template and Template:Autism rights movement serve similar purposes (side nav), they should probably be discussed together. Ryan Norton 23:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was reverted to what Muffinator last made it (which I changed because I believe it was too narrow to cover the topics listed), I still think it would be redundant. So, I've gone ahead and changed the title back to what it was to begin with so that it doesn't complicate the issue of this nomination. --Holdek (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving it to Template:Medical model of autism if it is kept. Shii (tock) 00:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shii has made some good edits to Medical model of autism, but I'm still concerned about it being misrepresented in terms of how much it is "promoted" in the cultural sense. From the limited research I did on Google Books, it seems to be more of a scientific topic, not an advocacy one. Autism awareness/research/treatment "movements" certainly exist, in the same way there is a "movement" to cure breast cancer, but I think that they use the medical model as a basis, rather than the two terms being synonymous. Perhaps some folks who do regular work on medical articles and are familiar with the Medical model of disability can weigh in as well? I'll put a notice on the medical project page. --Holdek (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Should go if anywhere at the bottom as a navbox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning towards Delete. I came here from the note at WT:NEURO. It's always tricky to define a template in terms of a "movement", in that doing so tends to make such a movement "official", and there better be longstanding sourcing to back that up. Here, we are dealing with material that includes advocacy for fringe science. It seems to me that Template:Autism resources meets all the needs we have for a navigation aid, and Template:Autism rights movement defines "movement" in a less fringe-y way. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Revised after reading subsequent comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - enshrines a fringey concept which is OR/non-encyclopedic in nature, since no such movement exists in accepted knowledge around this topic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as misleading and POV to fringe concept. I would have said merge to Template:Autism resources but this has apparently happened already. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, regardless of organization or information differences, the navigation is redundant, and this is a navbox. —PC -XT + 07:09, 28 August 2014 (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.