Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 6 November 8 >

November 7 edit

Template:ESCA 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) 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus to use this template on any talk pages. This is an attempt by one editor to include an essay (i.e. failed policy proposal) and has already been used by its creator to facilitate edit warring. Tim Shuba (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that there has been no eddit warring because of the principles of WP:ESCA. In fact, WP:ESCA has already been very helpful in preventing edit warring in a few cases. Count Iblis (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete template's soul purpose is to promote a single user's personal essay and push it as a guideline that must be followed. Not a valid nor appropriate use for a template at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Inappropriately used template to push a personal essay. As much as I hate this essay, it's the only (ironically only an essay) way I can describe this...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 19:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the essay can be mentioned on the relevant talk pages without this odd, ugly, and important-looking tag on top. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inappropriate promotion of an essay that is controversial and has no consensus. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no need to privilege one editor's (or one small group of editors') opinions on how to edit particular articles with a top-of-talk-page hatnote. If an editor wishes to share his essay with the community, there are accepted and appropriate ways to do so. A brief announcement at the Village Pump or mentions on the relevant article talk pages – as normal comments – are suitable methods. This isn't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my input in the AN/I discussion here. Also to say that there is "no consensus" on the respecitve talk pages is nonsensical, as the editors have not had a chance to say what they think. I've only added it to a few pages an hour or so ago and it has already been removed.
  • I also request that this TFD remaiins open for a week at least as the editors who could be in favor of keeping are busy scientist who do not edit Wikipedia very frequently. Everyone involved must have their say here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Request noted – It is standard practice to keep a TFD open for at least a week. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An essay is followed because people think the advice makes sense. This template gives the impression that it carries some sort of authority. I also think that notes to other editors should be on the talk page, not the article itself. Chillum 19:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The template says that following the advice of the essay is "requested" not "required". I only added it to those articles where ignoring what the essay says would likely cause trouble. The regulars on the policy pages are unfortunately only concerned with what is good for the politics pages, not the technical science pages, so there is zero chance of this ever becomingofficial policy. The next best thing to do would be t start to make local polcies based on local consensus. But it seems that even that will be overruled by uninvolved editors on the grounds of blasphemy :( Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ugly and scary. Looks like it was partly written by a contributor who was very recently banned from editing science articles. DVdm (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Looks like it was partly written by a contributor who was very recently banned from editing science articles". Not true at all! And sticking to the suggestions would have led to more fruitful discussion on the speed of light page. Count Iblis (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To editors here--- this essay is a long overdue attempt to recognize that science writing on Wikipedia uses a different system than the non-science writing, and that this must be recognized in order to allow a higher level of discussion. Right now, scientific pages are only protected from an army of wiki-lawyers by the angel of ignorance, because they are afraid to delete what they don't understand. All the content of nontrivial scientific pages violates the lawyerly interpretation of policy. To protect these pages from ignorant editing is extremely difficult under current guidelines, because they do not require that editors read the sources with understanding, or read multiple sources, or follow arguments which are elementary in the field.Likebox (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When this template was first used, it used the term "guideline". It now uses the term "essay" which is acceptable, although I do not think this template should be used on many pages. I support also the Count's suggestion that this TfD be left open for the full time period to allow as many users as possible to participate. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves only to push one editor's point of view on how these articles should be edited. The long list of opposition to a proposal on the talk page of the essay to make it into a stronger requirement should serve as an indication of how the rest of the editors in these areas feel about it, and the proponent's history of backing cranks is also worrisome. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have never backed any cranks on Wikipedia. Perhaps you mean by "backing" simply that I opposed a topic ban on all physics pages for an engineering professor with whom I did strongly disagreed on the relevant physics point. So, I never backed any crancs as far as physics is concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gives the incorrect impression that the essay's recommendations have the force of policy on the talk pages to which the template is applied. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems to present a misleading position of authority. TNXMan 21:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see no valid or acceptable use for this template. The essay has little support and should not be spammed at the top of any talk pages. Quale (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per dozens of reasons: promotion of essays, inappropriate and just awkward language ("are requested to observe the suggestions" - hugh), etc. (too much already said above). Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is unhelpful to post an ugly box on many talk pages, particularly when the box is an attempt to avoid the fundamental procedures of Wikipedia, and to promote a point of view that does not have consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Nay-sayers here are shooting in their own feet. If the template were not rejected in the knee jerk way as it looks like it has been, other editors could have some constructive input too. E.g., Dicklyon did make a modification to it. But if this is rejected, then by local consensus, a different text for some article could be agreed to and added directly (instead of via a template). If you are not editing that article, you wouldn't have any influence over the text at all. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice threat, but don't count on being able to pull it off. —Finell (Talk) 05:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a threat, but I note that the template has already been put back on some pages per local consensus. Count Iblis (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This template conveys the false impression that the essay Wikipedia talk:Editing scientific articles enjoys some special status. Iblis created it on 12 August 2009 as a proposed "New behavioral guidline [sic]". Consensus overwhelmingly opposed adopting it, with 2 "support" (counting Iblis) and 7 "oppose": Wikipedia talk:Editing scientific articles#Proposed policy. On 7 November 2009, Iblis changed the page's status from a failed guideline proposal to an essay and started putting this template at the very top of physics talk pages (above project banners, FA or GA evaluations, and everything else), with no talk page discussion and no edit comment. Originally, Iblis's template misrepresented his essay as "guidelines" despite its failure of adoption as such. There is no productive, non-deceptive purpose that this template can serve. Further, imagine what would happen if the supporters of every essay started templating talk pages the same way. —Finell (Talk) 05:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense, what happened was that Tim Shuba changed the status immediately before putting it up for TFD. I then changed it to "essay", and note that whether or not it should be an "essay" was already discussed on the talk page a few days earlier with me supporting it and no one openly dissenting. Also, I'm now proceeding on the basis of "local cnsensus" not "global consensus", so the global consensus for the guidelines is completely irrelevant. Count Iblis (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason why editors should be asked follow an essay. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why has this gone straight to TfD without discussion on the template's talk page? Looks like an attempt to railroad deletion thru. --Michael C. Price talk 08:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would propose a change to the template: Insert "not" between "requested" and "to observe". The essay has such small support that anyone asking it to be observed should do so manually in a normal talk page comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not make that suggestion on the template's talk page instead of rushing to delete? --Michael C. Price talk 11:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should not be a hat note, and, if inserted properly at the bottom of a talk page, it doesn't need the box. It might be acceptable as bare text, but then it should probably be substituted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If this essay does not become policy, Wikipedia science will remain at a low level forever, and other projects, notably scholarpedia, will take over. It is discouraging that people view this as a personal essay, when it is a guideline that urgently needs to be adopted. Until then, if Count Iblis advertizes it in an annoying attention-grabbing manner, I think that's a good thing.Likebox (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything that makes this essay even look like policy is bad news.--OMCV (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hatnotes are often used to call attention to policies and guidelines. Hatnotes are unsigned. Because of these characteristics, promoting an essay through a hatnote gives it a semblance of consensus authority that essays do not have. Moreover, because essays represent specific viewpoints rather than consensus, they are allowed to disagree with one another. So if we start permitting essay-based hatnotes, someone else could create an "ESCA is wrong" essay and start hatnoting that. For the editors who think the essay gives crucial advice that needs to be followed, the proper course is to get that advice into guideline form, either by getting the essay promoted or incorporating the relevant points into existing guidelines. If the essay becomes a guideline, then a hatnote for it could be entirely appropriate. Until then, it isn't appropriate. Negativity about the guideline-making process is not a substitute for engaging in it. --RL0919 (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially this is a way for one editor to spam a non-consensus opinion onto prominent places on numerous talk pages. I actually don't find the contents of the essay disagreeable, but they need to go through a lot of review and emendation and have the input of many other editors before links to the essay should be plastered everywhere. Also, this template is improperly built to stand out rather than using the format of all the other templates on the encyclopedia. Robert K S (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The template was added to mainly those pages where most involved editors knew about ESCA and were in favor of it. Also it is relevant to those ages. The latter point was a lesser factor in the two special relativity related pages where I added it. This is then certainly not spam. The removal of the templates from the pages was done by an univoilved editor against the local consensus. What the essay says is, like it or not, already the de-facto policy on most of the pages it was added to. Count Iblis (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not what a template should be at all. GiantSnowman 17:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have softened the template's message to:

Editors might find helpful the suggestions in the essay: Editing scientific articles

--Michael C. Price talk 18:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how you rephrase it. The problem is that it's an unsigned, pseudo-official looking template. The format encourages a notion that the template ought to carry more weight and authority than other talk page comments, which is misleading. Whether at the top of a talk page or sprinkled throughout, it encourages the mistaken impression that this is a command, not an opinion. Editors are free to leave signed messages referring to essays that they've written (whether alone or in collaboration with other editors). Why is a template required to create a link? Does this mean that anyone who disagrees with the essays needs to create their own template, with its own nauseatingly-coloured box, to offer a refutation? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The template and the accompanying essay both give quite misleading views on how to write wikipedia articles on science. Mathsci (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inappropriate template linking to contentious essay that, when its two or three authors have there way, directly contradicts policy. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I can't see any situation where this template's use wouldn't qualify as disruptive editing. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is deceptive to promote an essay (especially one which is widely disputed) as a guideline, policy, "local consensus", suggestion, request, whatever-you-call-it in a way that is likely to mislead new editors into thinking that it some form of wikipedia norm; and this template does exactly that. Assuming there is consensus to delete this template, editors should not attempt an end-run around it by substituting it onto articles, even under claims that it has local consensus, since discussion on individual talkpages cannot trump wider discussions like the one we are having here. Of course, there is no objection to Count Iblis or others referring to this essay in discussions, as long as (1) it is relevant and (2) they sign their comment, so that it is clear that it represents their opinion and not some wikipedia diktat. Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have myriad issues with the essay this template references anyway. It appears to me that its basic premises are fundamentally flawed, but as a personal essay the authors are free to write pretty much what they want. However, I strongly object to any move to portray it as anything other than a personal essay, whether that be (as a few days ago) tagging it as a proposed policy (a bait and switch, since it avoids thorough scrutiny of the document while it is under formation), or as here tagging talk pages as if this as a guideline to be followed. It isn't and it is misleading to pretend that it is.

    If the authors can make up their mind as to what this document is supposed to be (essay, guideline or policy) and are clear about that then we can treat it appropriately and ensure it (and references such as this template) receive the proper level of scrutiny. However, as yet it is still unclear and while that remains the case it appears a unilateral land grab, attempting to set rules through something other that the generally recognised channels. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: entirely inappropriate attempt to portray an essay as something official. Also I am concerned with Count Iblis's statement here [1] that the template has been placed on many science article talkpages, but "is invisible". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 November 2009
  • Delete This one is nothing more than an essay, and it truely does not reflect the opinions of more than a handful of editors. It's not a bad essay, but it's WP:CREEP at its core. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see any analogue to this elsewhere on the encyclopedia. This suggests that other projects have found a way of getting their suggested content / style guides across without needing banner advertisements. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disruptive and deceptive. GlassCobra 23:35, 16 November 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:DBpedia Class 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) 04:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DBpedia Class (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, unedited for months. TNXMan 16:51, 7 November 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:DBpedia Template 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) 04:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DBpedia Template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DBpedia Attribute (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:DBpedia Property (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate template created by DBpedia itself to spam Wikipedia with its tools for "extracting data from Wikipedia" and spamming itself throughout the encyclopedia. Also including in this nom the docs and related templates. If DBPedia wants to "extract" data, they can do it the same way any other mirror site does, by downloading and running filters on the data dumps, not by spamming their stuff here to make their programming easier. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:: We don't tag our GDFL information for where it is used. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand this comment. :-) Chrisahn (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears that this may have been discussed at a very high level with the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think we can come to an informed decision before the discussion at ANI has been given some time. Hans Adler 16:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not. From the ANI discussion, it was talked about with one or two people related to the German Wikipedia, and not by permission of the Foundation. Wikipedia's community should be the one to decide if this is appropriate, not informal email discussions primarily between DBpedia's contributers. Indeed, from their own links, they were also requested to stop similar behavior at Meta[2] and the only permission they were given was for the onthology pages at Meta, not for spamming any Wikipedia pages with these templates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI thread specifically mentioned that the user has been in discussions with Brion Vibber and Daniel Kinzler. It would be a good idea to investigate this, before leaping to reaching conclusions. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - DBpedia has been extracting Wikipedia data for years. Until now, we used local configuration files to specify which infobox properties should be extracted. These new templates are not meant to make our job easier. (In fact, they make it harder - reading the configuration from them is much more complex than reading it from local files.) The main goal of these new templates is to allow Wikipedians to change the way DBpedia extracts infobox data and provide instant feedback. There is an ongoing discussion at ANI about the whole issue. Please keep the templates until the debate has been resolved. -- Chrisahn (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Delete - as per the comment below at 10:54 today by SebastianHellmann. Chrisahn (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are NOT appropriate, have absolutely no consensus, and are purely intended to help DBpedia. They do nothing for Wikipedia. As you said, DBpedia has been extracting data for years, the same as many other folks. It needs to stick to local configuration files, not try to modify Wikipedia to match their software. This is exactly what you are doing, which again is not for improving Wikipedia, but for improving DBpedia. Wikipedia offers the data stream, it is up to those who want to consume it to modify THEIR software to do so, not try to hack Wikipedia to make it easier on their users (which is what it does). Nor does the ANI debat need to be resolved for this to continue. This is a community issue. The ANI issue is about dealing with the 4-5 of you who came here in mass and began spamming these all over the place. It is already clear that the only ones supporting it are the DBpedia folks themselves, and did so with very wrong claims of having "permission" that they did not actually have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't modify Wikipedia to match our software. Quite on the contrary. We had to modify our software heavily to match these templates. And we want to make it easier not for our users but for Wikiepdians to decide what DBpedia extracts from Wikipedia. But that's not really the point. What's in it for Wikipedia? DBpedia (and thus Wikipedia) is at the heart of the growing Web of Linked Data, thus increasing the visibility and significance of Wikipedia in that area. Plans to do something similar to DBpedia or to incorporate its data into Wikipedia, e.g. using SemanticMediaWiki, have been discussed at the MediaWiki Foundation and on several Wikipedia mailing lists. The ability to compare and enrich infobox data extracted by DBpedia with other data sources will in turn improve the data in Wikipedia infoboxes. These templates are not 'spam' - they do not promote DBpedia. But you are correct in that we should have had a broad community discussion about these templates, and ANI is not the place for that. I'm sorry for that misunderstanding. Chrisahn (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, first yu had to create these templates and put them into Wikpiedia. That was modifying Wikipedia for no valid reason. Again, you are trying to promote DBpedia as somehow a partner with Wikipedia (it is not) and claiming that it is somehow vital to Wikipedia (it is not). Again, data extracting is fine, have fun. But it does not require these templates be shoved onto every infobox document on Wikipedia. There is no discussion on Wikipedia about doing anything to shove data from DBpedia backwards to it (and I seriously doubt such an idea would pass). And yes, they are spam, they have direct links back to DBpedia, are NOT for anything Wikipedia related, and were done without actual community discussion or consensus. The few discussions that have been been pointed out in the ANI do not support any claim that MediaWiki or anyone else approved of this venture, only of what was added specifically to MediaWiki itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by 'direct links back to DBpedia'? Chrisahn (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - mentioned in the nom, but not linked anywhere, are "the docs and related templates". Presumably the nom is referring to the additions made by Special:Contributions/Echera, which the nom has already reverted (except for the doc pages that were started with those edits, which have been tagged for csd. E.g. Template:Infobox Olympics Finland/doc). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i meant the docs that were made for these templates, not the ones the DBpedia made on other infoboxes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has NOT been moved. Deletion of the templates is a separate issue. Please stop claiming any discussion has been moved. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He might mean "centralized"? It is obviously his second language, and he's stated elsewhere that he's not overly familiar with Wikipedia-specific behavioral norms. Let's give him a little leeway, before we put a massive dataerror into a live project that we may or may not be officially coordinated with? Please! It's a W3C project! Search this project page for "dbpedia" for the few key sentences. I'm not at all sure, but I think you might be misinterpreting something? I don't know who to ask for input, but we need confirmation/denial from someone high-up. Maybe ask the mailinglist? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the ANI for links that they themselves provided claiming it supported this movement. They do not. Meta gave permission for doing othology on meta, not for these templates. They were also given access to the live stream to do their data extraction, but not for adding templates or trying to modify Wikipedia to aid themselves with this extraction. That link doesn't say anything about DBPedia being given explicit permission to create templates and modify every infobox on Wikipedia to aid in their data extraction. We do not add templates or modify Wikipedia content for any other consumer of its data, of which there are hundreds, if not thousands, not even Google. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our talk about the templates was with Daniel Kinzler only, who proposed the doc pages, I'm not sure, if this is like a permission. I created the discussion thread on Village Pump to give a clear overview of the intend and to have a place to achieve consensus. We might have acted a bit fast, so please give the request a fair chance. Look at DBpedia, about the possibilities to actually query Wikipedia like a database, ask technical questions, if any and then give your opinion. SebastianHellmann (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again: these templates do not aid DBpedia. They make our task more difficult. They are meant to allow Wikipedians to control DBpedia. Chrisahn (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lots of websites extract and use information from Wikipedia, we shouldn't be promoting any of them. Guest9999 (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Going to give this some further thought. Guest9999 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's inappropriate for anyone to modify content for their own purposes, and adding templates specifically meant for their own purposes to content-related templates is blatantly so. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the above discussion (or investigate the other threads thoroughly), you'll notice they emphasize that the template is not specifically for their own purposes. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. I am volunteering to work with those who were involved in the creation of these templates to find a suitable non-invasive means to make the data available in a microformat form. We already do this in many cases, see Category:Templates generating microformats and COinS in Wikipedia so making data available in a such a format is not anything new or unusual. I do not think the idea of mapping template parameters on the visible template documentation subpage is a very good idea however, as we can easily do this via a non-invasive microformat of some form or another. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per SebastianHellmann and the village pump discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. What the templates should achieve is to link attributes to a (lightweight) ontology maintained in MetaWiki. I see some issues/differences compared to using Microformats in that case. While they are intended for special purposes (calenders, person information, events, coordinates, recipes, products), the ontology spans several domains (and potentially languages in the future). Even if there would be some analogous way to include them in the template definition, the question of reaching consensus, i.e. which properties and classes to use, is still challenging, because there would probably be no visible link between the template definition and the ontology defined in MetaWiki. I see the template coherence proposal more as a complementary addition to the more specialized Microformats. Jens Lehmann (talk) 08:13, 15 November 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:AMA Superbike champions 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) 22:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AMA Superbike champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation for AMA Superbike champions. Articles for superbike champions are currently using succession boxes instead. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and succession boxes are better for this type of situation. --RL0919 (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. GlassCobra 23:30, 16 November 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:ATX 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) 22:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, orphan template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no talk and no edits since it was created in June 2008. Appears to create an external link to stock information from the Vienna Stock Exchange, which can be done with a traditional URL if appropriate for a particular article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. GlassCobra 23:30, 16 November 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:Asakaze class destoyer 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) 22:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asakaze class destoyer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old orphan template with many red links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the creator of that template, I'm fine with its deletion. The class name is given differently in different sources and the newer template (Template:Kamikaze class destroyers (1905)) reflects Wikipedia's current stance. --Nakamura2828 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per creator's comment above. Maralia (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and acquiescence from creator. GlassCobra 23:29, 16 November 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:Asian British residence map 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) 22:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asian British residence map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no links, no talk and no edits since June 2008. Not clear that it is even potentially useful for more than one article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused and presumably unwanted. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both above and nom. GlassCobra 23:28, 16 November 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:Wiki-uc 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 Speedy delete. Willking1979 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wiki-uc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. Unused and a copy of {{wikify}}. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator and probably the only user of this template. Back in the day, I was a (moderately) active NP patroller. If I felt that an article met the notability standards, but not the quality standards, I would have to tag it with {{wikify}} and {{uc}} to keep it from being deleted, so I created this template to shorten it into one step. I (like most NP patrollers) was in the "tag-and-move-on" mode, allowing no time to personally improve the article. This was improper, as I had no guarantee that the article would actually be under construction after my notices. Delete. [flaminglawyer] 00:24, 10 November 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:Vasilievsky Island Labelled Map 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) 00:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vasilievsky Island Labelled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. Unused. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as orphaned and presumably unwanted. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Start up user will complete it, then it is possible to place there in articles about metro stations.--Andrey! 13:34, 13 November 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:En connect 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) 00:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:En connect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. Abandoned, unused template -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no talk and no edits since the day it was created in October 2008. Also doesn't seem useful, since all it does is create a list that can more easily be typed in regular text. --RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 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:Municipalities of Andaman and Nicobar Islands 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) 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Municipalities of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. Abandoned and no content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it had content, we could use it easily, but without content, it's useless. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 9 November 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:Municipalities of Chandigarh 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) 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Municipalities of Chandigarh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. Abandoned and no content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it had content, we could use it easily, but without content, it's useless. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 9 November 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:Municipalities of Dadra and Nagar Haveli 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) 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Municipalities of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. Abandoned and no content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it had content, we could use it easily, but without content, it's useless. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 9 November 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:Municipalities of Lakshadweep 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) 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Municipalities of Lakshadweep (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. Abandoned and no content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it had content, we could use it easily, but without content, it's useless. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 9 November 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:Municipalities of Puducherry 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) 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Municipalities of Puducherry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. Abandoned and no content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it had content, we could use it easily, but without content, it's useless. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 9 November 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:NA 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. JPG-GR (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. Not really a template and has been abandoned. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looks like a substitution template for use as a skeleton article framework. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Template:New Article Skeleton, and document into the Help Pages on how to create an article. This would be a substitution framework template. If people want to avoid the article creation wizard but still want a mockup to edit into an article, this would be useful, though it needs to be rebuilt. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although unused at the moment, I agree that this is not a bad idea for a template, as it provides a basic framework for creating a new article. I wouldn't object to deletion, but it seems this could have some use for new users. Robofish (talk) 00:33, 13 November 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_discussion/Log/2009_November_7&oldid=1150995132"