Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 June 2)
< June 1 June 3 >

June 2 edit

{{Stub/doc}} edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Relisted at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/June/26


This is more a procedural thing that anything else. A /doc file has been created for {{stub}} - similar files have been deleted from the template in the past, so this is the re-creation of a deleted page. It is worth debating whether such a file is useful or not.

Reasons in favour of having such a file
  • It allows any editor to add an interwiki link, rather than having to request it at Template talk:Stub
  • All other templates have /doc files (not strictly true, but the vast majority do)
Reasons against having such a file
  • WP:STUB serves as a de facto /doc file and is already linked from the template
  • Since all stub templates operate in identical ways, the same doc file would theoretically need to be linked to some 3000+ templates
  • If it's not linked to all these templates, we may see a proliferation of stub /doc files which suggest different usage for each template (which would render stubbing largely unworkable)

Personally, I'm against having such a /doc file - the second and third points listed against having them outweigh the benefits of the points in favour of them, so would prefer to see this deleted. This is especially the case since - given that {{stub}} is removed ASAP from articles and replaced, there's really no need for the base template to still be protected (if protection were removed, anyone could add interwikis). If others see things otherwise, this would be a good opportunity to state their opinions. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    1. Firstly this is not a stub, it's a template, so it should probably be listed at WP:TfD. I'll see if I can maybe transclude it at both.   Done
    2. All templates should contain instructions (or at least a link to instructions) on how to use them. Yes, "stub" does link to WP:STUB, but I don't think it is intuitive that you would click that to get information about how to use the template. You are more likely to think that it would tell you what a stub is. And typically a lot of these stubs link to Wikipedia:Perfect stub which directs to an anchor lower down in WP:Stub. It would make more sense to have a sentence like "For full details on how to use this, please see Wikipedia:Stub."
    3. I take the point that there does not need to be a separate documentation for each stub template. That would be overkill and may well cause confusion.
    4. The first advantage is the biggest for me. It is a complete waste of an administrator's time to attend to these trivial requests to add interwiki links, when there is a perfectly good method available which avoids it.
    5. To possibly solve the above two points, I have started work on Template:Stub documentation, which uses a centralised documentation for all stub templates as well as allowing interwiki links in a subpage. Any comments would be welcome. Obviously it is not finished yet. I've tried it out on a few templates where I came across interwiki requests and the method seems to work well. See {{Islam-stub}} as an example.
    So in summary, I'm saying that we can make some improvements here. I'm willing to help, and if you'd like to discuss it with me instead of bringing the page straight to XfD, then I think we can make some headway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
  1. all templates relevant to stub types are discussed here (/doc templates have been deleted here in the past), so this is the appropriate forum.
  2. You may be right about what would be the best wording, and I'd support such a change - however, that wording would preclude the need for a /doc file, so it's not entirely relevant to whether this should stay or go.
  3. (no response required)
  4. Unprotecting the template would have the same effect, which I suggested above. In any case, since WP:WSS contains several admins, all of whom regularly patrol {{stub}} (mysefl included), it's not an enormous hassle.
  5. I feel that Template:Stub documentation is likely to end up simply as a fork of WP:STUB - it'll certainly take effort to ensure that the two documents don't contradict each other. As such, I think it would end up being far more work than simply rewording the standard stub message.
I agree that some improvements could be made - and also note that I brought this straight to SfD as a procedural matter primarily (as I made clear to you on your talk page) - this has been deleted before, and as such should either be speedily deleted or brought here. I figured this was the lesser of two evils, and also would likely cause a more general discussion than just comments between us on your talk page. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problems have started already, BTW, I've had to nominate two /doc files today. I hope you are willing to help, because there's a can of worms been opened here... Grutness...wha? 02:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "can of worms". I really think your fears are groundless. Many other projects use templates, and each template is properly documented without it becoming "unworkable" or contradictory to the main project documentation. Compare the Good article process which uses Template:GA nominee or the AfC project which uses Template:AFC submission. You have presented no evidence that putting some documentation on these templates would cause disruption. Honestly you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this, and I can only wonder why. I did accept that it would be unnecessary for each stub template to have separate documentation; that's why I suggested using something like the {{stub doc}} template which centralises the documentation, but still allows interwikis to be placed in a subpage. I intend to continue to place interwiki links in subpages whenever I come across such protected edit requests on templates, for the reason that I firmly believe that a user should not need to ask for administrator help for such a trivial task when there is a good alternative method which has been developed. If you notice from the previous version of Template:PRChina-stub, the /doc page contains only interwiki links and the edit link said "edit interwikis", so it in no way encourages people to add a separate documentation page as you fear. (I only used the name "doc" for consistency.) Please try to be more open to changes which can improve the process. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no can of worms, how do you explain that in the six months prior to creating {{stub/doc}}, no new /doc files were made for stub templates, yet two quite a number have in the first three days since (did you make them all? I know you made some, but what about Florida-Hospital-stub/doc? Gospel-music-stub/doc? Given that there are over 3000 stub templated, stub/doc sets a precedent which is already showing unwelcome fruit. Many other projects use templates, and each template is properly documented without it becoming "unworkable" or contradictory to the main project documentation Show me one other wikiproject which uses over 3000 templates all of which are supposed to be used in an identical way. If you can, which I sincerely doubt, I will guarantee that it will not use/doc files but will use some more workable alternative - as is done with stub templates. You have presented no evidence that putting some documentation on these templates would cause disruption. I have provided evidence that it is already causing disruption, and plenty of good reasons why having it may cause far more disruption, and I have also already pointed out that this is why it is not done. I have further pointed out that /doc files have been discussed for stub templates in the past and rejected. Honestly you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this, and I can only wonder why - only because it's been suggested in the past (usually after someone has created a bunch of /doc files), and has always been rejected, along with causing a lot of work which WP:WSS had to mop up when its members could have been busy doing more productive work. This has been pointed out to you, but for some reason, you seem reluctant to believe it. As such, I wonder why you have a bee in your bonnet about these templates.
The same purpose as a /doc file is already well served by WP:STUB. As such, no /doc file is necessary. I also pointed out that, since {{stub doc}} would have identical information to part of that which is already at WP:STUB, where it needs to be retained, it would simply become a fork of that document. It would require extra work from all involved to make sure that the documents do not come to contradict each other; every time one was edited, the other would need to also be edited to make sure it still matched. This would be an untenable situation. I intend to continue to place interwiki links in subpages whenever I come across such protected edit requests on templates, for the reason that I firmly believe that a user should not need to ask for administrator help for such a trivial task when there is a good alternative method which has been developed. Any that you do will be nominated for deletion here, so please do not do so. I've already explained that it is a simple task to ask one of the admins involved in the stub-sorting project to do that task - indeed, we do it regularly and it takes virtually no time to do so. As to you putting a note on a /doc page saying that only interwiki links are to be put there, do you really think that anyone seeing a /doc file for one stub template is going to open it up in an edit window to check exactly why it had been made before makign their owwn one for a different stub template? If so, how do you explain the number of new stub /doc files which have more than that itn them, the Florida-Hospital one, for instance, which was made only a day or so after {{stub}} got a /doc file, and which contains far more than just interwiki links?
I'd ask you to please be more open to the fact that stub sorters on en:Wiki in general know a lot more about the way stub templates work and the problems involved in creating /doc files for them than you do, simply because they have faced this situation in the past. You may do stub sorting on the Romanian Wikipedia, but the problems here are far more acute than there due to the considerably larger number of articles and stubs - there are nearly three times as many geo-stubs alone here than the entire number of articles on the Romanian Wikipedia, for example, and there are nearly 100 times as many editors on en:Wiki than on Ro:Wiki. If the search function is anything to go by, ro:Wiki has only 8% of the number of stub templates that en:Wiki does. So while /doc files might work there, they face more severe problems here. We do the best we can and quickly discover when other alternative methods of doing things work or cause problems. the methods you seem so keen on have been assessed in the past and have always caused problems and been quickly rejected. Please don't assume that a problem isn't going to occur when (a) a similar problem happened last time several stub/doc files were made and (b) there's already a growing amount of evidence that the same thing is happening again. It hasn't improved things before - and indeed has always created far more work for WP:WSS; it will do exactly the same this rtime, so again I say that this - and {{stub doc}} - should most definitely be deleted, and the sooner the better. Grutness...wha? 13:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- every template deserves a good /doc, especially for protected templates. There's a simple link to the WP:STUB guideline for more complete documentation. But delete the similar {{stub doc}} redirect, and its {{stub documentation}} target. They serve no useful purpose.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grutness; I disagree with the idea that every template "deserves" a good /doc (to me it seems like instruction creep), and that simple link to WP:STUB should be sufficient. Pegship (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems perfectly reasonable that the template has a documentation sub-page. Thinking it was missing, I once almost tried to create one myself. It really would have saved me time if it had been there. -- User:Docu
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NJTransit-Main-Bergen-infobox 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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NJTransit-Main-Bergen-infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused by any article, as it is redundant to Template:NJTransit-Bergen-infobox and Template:NJTransit-Main-infobox (and Template:Port Jervis -infobox) which are more specific to each individual line, which have separate articles. Long story short, there is no combined infobox within which this template would be used.oknazevad (talk) 18:16, 2 June 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:2009 AL Wild Card standings 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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 AL Wild Card standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2007 AL Wild Card standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating per discussion at WT:MLB. There seems to be a pervasive attitude that this isn't necessary; this is not a sports page. If readers have an overwhelming desire to see who won the wild card in a particular year, the Major League Baseball season pages will tell them, because this information is included in the divisional standings. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm pretty sure wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.--Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are WC standings every year, this one is no more important than the others, none of which have such a template. blackngold29 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just noticed another one exists - Template:2007 AL Wild Card standings... should that be thrown in with this discussion? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 3 June 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:CSRT-Yes 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 ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Template:CSRT-Yes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template text is transcluded into the body of text of multiple articles. As such it violates Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Usage: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.".

There seems no trace of the discussion mentioned in the template's documentation (I had left notes at WT:WikiProject Terrorism, User talk:Sherurcij and User talk:Ms2ger). -- User:Docu 10:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC), updated 11:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, Template was created, as noted, at the behest of Wikiproject:Terrorism, and both Wikiproject:Templates and Wikipedia Talk:Templates approved of its creation as "outside the normal use of templates, but necessary and justified" in the case of 900 biographical articles all conveying "slightly different" summaries of the CSRT process. One user wrote the bulk of the summaries, and then somebody would point out his POV language, and change it on one detainee. But that didn't change it across the other 900 detainee articles -- then somebody else would decide that it should include a comparison to Nuremberg against consensus, and again, change it on one detainee. So to solidify and cooperatively work towards a single cohesive block of text, this template was created. You can find some traces of the conversation that preceded its creation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates/Archive_1#Prose_exception, where you'll see "this seems exactly what a template is for: i.e. to standardise across multiple articles and make the content easily changable", as well as some of the work in refining the prose at Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo, and more double-checking on its ability to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, at Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#Prose_exception where the administrator says "I would support this - it's already done at List of animals displaying homosexual behavior. The repeated text should be in the template namespace so it can be used by mirrors and forks - the database dump used by Wikipedia mirrors contains the template namespace. There should also be copious HTML comments before the template, to let other editors know what to do if they want to edit the repeated text.". There were zero objections to its creation, and it's survived more than a year across hundreds of articles about Guantanamo detainees' legal proceedings unchallenged (though frequently refined). In the future, further research and following the links already provided would be a nice touch, before leaping to TfD. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because a couple WikiProjects agreed to it and it's been around for a year is all fine and well - but that doesn't refute it being against policy. JPG-GR (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Ignore all rules says This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. -- unless you can show that WP is actually served by deleting things in a stoic fashion without common sense...the templates stand of their own merit. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Citing WP:IAR and using a lot of bold doesn't really entice me to support your position. JPG-GR (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you for finally providing the links I had asked you for. You might want to add them to the template's documentation as well.
    There should be other ways to achieve your objective, e.g. as the procedure is outlined in CSRT, one could just use {{main|CSRT}} instead.
    In addition, the images in the template can convey the idea that they are related to the person in the article. IMHO, they shouldn't be used in every article. -- User:Docu
    • That is a topic to be discussed on the template's talk page, what the template should or shouldn't include. It is bizarre at best to take it to TfD because you think certain facets of a template should be changed. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My nomination omitted to mention the images. Now it's done. -- User:Docu 18:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is it necesary for 900+ biographical articles to contain so much non-biographical information? This information should be covered in an article about Combatant Status Review (such as Combatant Status Review Tribunal) and then linked to from biographical articles. In an article about an individual accused of, arrested for, tried for, or convicted a particular crime, do we allocate 2–4 paragraphs to background information about criminal law and judicial processes in that jurisdiction? No, we link to the relevant articles and include only information that is directly relevant to the subject of the article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template has been greatly pared down from the original prose (which had intermittent "POV" warnings on some articles, not on others, etc - so we strove to replace, so that if somebody says including "the Bush Administration" is POV, we can change it in all cases.).
Initially the Bush administration asserted they could withhold the protections of the Geneva Conventions from captives in the "War on Terror", while critics argued the Conventions obliged the United States to conduct competent tribunals to determine the status of prisoners. Subsequently, the US Department of Defense instituted Combatant Status Review Tribunals, to determine whether the captives met the new definition of an "enemy combatant".
This simply explains why the prisoner was not treated in the traditional way, it basically says "The government claimed they could hold Bob without charging him, while critics said Bob couldn't be held without charges, so as a compromise Bob was partially-charged" or the equivalent. (That's not an apt summary, more of a simile). If there were disputes about how to proceed with a court case against any prisoner on WP, we'd spend a sentence explaining the two opposing viewpoints to his imprisonment. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CSRTs are not bound by the rules of evidence that would apply in court, and the government’s evidence is presumed to be “genuine and accurate.”[1]
This is the only sentence that "explains" the CSRT, a single sentence in each article hardly seems like overkill to me - though again, POV claims can be made that it should reworded. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From July 2004 through March 2005, a CSRT was convened to make a determination whether each captive had been correctly classified as an "enemy combatant". CSRT-Yes was among the two-thirds of prisoners who chose to participate in their tribunals.[2]
This is simply saying whether or not the subject participated in their Tribunal, or boycotted it. Again, the wording can be reduced...but that's an issue for talk page, not TfD. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Summary of Evidence memo was prepared for the tribunal, listing the alleged facts that led to his detention. His memo accused him of the following:
This seems necessary as a summary of facts that develop the accusation against the subject follows the information in each article. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep if modified to remove the images. The above justification for the text does not include them. DGG (talk) 01:08, 4 June 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_2&oldid=1138693664"