Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 22

< May 21	May 23 >

May 22

Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

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 No consensus. I'm mindful of the fact that "keep" comments outnumber "deletes", but as has been noted, TFD is not a vote. What is conspicuously absent from both sides of this discussion is evidence of broader community consensus, such as references to existing guidelines, essays, prior TFDs, or anything to answer the critical question: is the copyediting of an article the sort of editorial milestone that the community would like to see recorded in a talk page template? I would encourage taking that question to a broader forum, such as the village pump, where it can be discussed without the pressures (and potentially skewed participation) of TFD. If there is a broader consensus that considers copyediting an important milestone, then presumably this template would be kept or perhaps could be merged into {{ArticleHistory}}. If the broader consensus considers copyediting to be unworthy of such a record, then this template is probably a goner. But as of now that broader consensus has not yet been made clear. RL0919 (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Promoting useful Wikiprojects like this one is a noble idea, but this template isn't one. The template is added to the talk page of every article that has been touched by a member of the Wikiproject (at least that seems to be the intention), and there's no date when to remove it again. So, at Talk:Ender's Game, for instance, we're told that User:Scapler copyedited the article in January last year. Well, that's.. nice to know, I guess. But what use is that information to anyone, really? It's a cheap excuse to promote the Wikiproject, and nothing else. A message on the talk page would be a much better idea, IMHO ("Hey, I just copyedited the article, if you want to help, feel free to participate in our WikiProject!"). Such a message would eventually be archived, it wouldn't stay at the very top of the talk page for all eternity. Conti|✉ 21:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. But what's the difference between the GOCE flag and an Editors typed statement saying basically the same thing ?Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 00:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

To quote myself: "Such a message would eventually be archived, it wouldn't stay at the very top of the talk page for all eternity." --Conti|✉ 14:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Why not just archive the template normally along with other talk page contents? Instead of putting it at the top of the page, it could be added into a normal talk section. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 03:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • How do you archive a template with no date stamp? Archival bots will ignore it, and so will most people manually archiving messages. Templates on top of a talk page are supposed to stay there. --Conti|✉ 14:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • There's nothing preventing us from making modifications that would include the use of a date stamp. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 21:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Not topical to any article, can't go there to ask about the topic. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep is my view, the GOCE flag already in place and no worse than typing the same thing. Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 05:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe that the utility of this template is twofold. First, it provides recognition to what I believe to be one of the most critical tasks performed by Wikipedians. I performed the bulk of the work recently to get a list to FL status, but that list would not have reached that level without the GoCE's help. That recognition provides positive reinforcement to those performing copy edits. Secondly, these templates let other editors know that this service exists.
  
  As far as clutter goes, it can be dealt with in a few ways. A {{Skip to talk}} template can be placed at the top of the page. In addition, the existing GoCE template can be modified to be collapsable, with the default position set to collapsed. All additional work performed by the GoCE to that article can be incorporated into the collapsed template, perhaps like in the {{ArticleHistory}} template. NYCRuss ☎ 12:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, the template (or the idea behind it) could be fully incorporated into the ArticleHistory template, if that's really necessary. --Conti|✉ 14:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Coincidentally, I started working on this two days before this TfD went up. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I take exception to the "cheap excuse" comment. Its simply unnecessary in making your point. Apropos of the current discussion, I think the template shows an important landmark in the history of an article. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I just don't see how a copyedit or two can possibly be considered an "important landmark" in the history of an article. It's important work, but it's something that's done all the time, all over the place, in every single article that we have. --Conti|✉ 14:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That tag is not used when someone corrects the spelling of a half dozen words. It is used when a major copyedit is done, improving the article to be of sufficient quality for a {{copyedit}} tag to be removed. That is not something that's done all the time, all over the place, in every single article, else there wouldn't be 7800 articles with the {{copyedit}} tag. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
      • And if all those articles will be fixed, there will be 7800 talk pages with this template on them? I just don't think that's such a useful thing to do, is all (The template-adding, not the article-fixing, of course). If this is just about mentioning an important milestone of the article's history (and I personally don't think there really is a need for that), then the ArticleHistory template is the way to go. If this is about promoting the WikiProject, then a personal message on the talk page or in edit summaries seems like a less in-your-face way to go. --Conti|✉ 10:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I've copy edited 172 articles this month. I've added that tag to maybe a dozen of the most massive and significant copy edits. I'm not tagging up every single tiny article, as many of them are not important enough to note. But for extremely large work, I think it's legitimate. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see the difference between this and {{rescued}}. Whether or not an article has gone through a major revision, it doesn't need a landmark banner to be added to it by a given WikiProject. I overhaul articles quite often but I don't go sticking banners on the talk page to record it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Every WikiProject is entitled to place a template on an article of interest to the project. I have copy edited articles with lots of WikiProject templates on them, however, the article is in a mess and nobody from any of the Projects have worked on the article. Now, someone from GOCE comes along, works on the article for hours or even days, remove the undesirable {{copyedit}} tag from the article page itself. Now, the person who has spent so much time getting this into shape can't put a template promoting a project that does so much good around here on the talk page, while the other WikiProjects who have done little can? I only joined GOCE because I happen to see such a banner. If not for that, I would not have known about the Project. Since then, I have worked really hard and have copyedited a lot of articles. I would not have if I was not a member of GOCE. Perhaps the wording needs to be changed, or the system in which we display details need to be looked at. We do not simply slap the banner on every single page we edit. If the edit is not substantial, or if the article is a stub, most of us do not bother to put the banner on. So, no, there will not be 7,000+ articles with the tag on it. But, we will work hard to remove the copyedit tag of the 7,000+ articles. GOCE members also work very hard to help get many articles to pass GA and FA, and a lot of recognition is given to members directly for this type of work. Many of these editors came to GOCE to request for help because they saw the template. Is the banner causing any real harm? It does so much good, and should be promoted. As I said, perhaps we need to re-look at the wording of the template, perhaps coded to some sort of class grading. I don't mind it being modified, but I am against it being deleted. — S Masters (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The banner is explicitly helping to improve the project, but raising awareness for a group that does a lot of difficult work. That encourages people to join in that endeavor or seek assistance from the group. Both are positives. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 17:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment should be added to {{ArticleHistory}} and then be orphaned and deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I appreciate copyeditors' work, but this is not the way to have it recognized. If kept, my preferences (in order) would be: a) place it only in the main body of the talk page with a datestamp on it for archiving; b) make it collapsible and place it lower in the talk page header section; c) not collapsible but still lower in the talk page header section. There is no way in heck that it should be the most prominent banner on any talk page. Powers ^T 20:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't put the banner on top. Always at the bottom. If you see it at the top, most probably, the banner was placed there first and then other WikiProjects placed their banners at the bottom of that. If I see the banner at the top, I move it to the bottom. - S Masters (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You do? If it should always go to the bottom, that's what the template documentation should say. --Conti|✉ 08:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I can't speak for anyone else. And like I've said, if I see it at the top, I will normally move it to the bottom. - S Masters (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I incorrectly characterized the standard practice. The one instance of this template I've seen was (within the past week) placed at the top above all of the other banners. The problems are mitigated somewhat by placing it at the bottom, but I would still prefer a solution that doesn't result in a permanent banner. Powers ^T 19:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. This template is one of the most highly used templates by the Guild of Copy Editors, and if it were deleted, cleaning up the invalid template would be a big struggle, plus it would create quite the mess on copy edited articles' talk pages. The Utahraptor ^Talk 23:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Then it should be part of {{Article History}}, not a WPP banner. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Without a concerted effort on the part of copy editors, the backlog of articles needing copy edit grows at the rate of two or three hundred per month. We need to advertise to continue to attract more people interested in performing this valuable work, or the quality of the entire encyclopedia will deteriorate. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. 1) It provides the article's ownership (those who watch the article closely) with notification that the editing was conducted. 2) It allows the community to know that at one time this article received a thorough review. 3) Provides valuable recognition for the work provided by the Guild that would otherwise go unrecognized. 4) Assists in the self recruitment of Copy-editors who would otherwise be unaware of the Guilds presence. 5) It provides a level of legitimacy for the good faith efforts of the Guild members. I would support an expiration date. If it really bothers you individually, remove them as you cross one that you feel has out lived it's usefulness. As to the argument that many editors do not use the tag, thank them for their contributions, have they considered joining the Guild? Performing a copy-edit on a subject that you have absolutely no interest is much more difficult a task then contributing to your own areas of interest. Without the Guild, articles contributed by non-native English speakers would continue to suffer, as few native English speakers would be drawn to their subjects (i.e. international incidents, music and video programs, indigenous populations, etc.) It is easy to slap a Copy edit request on an article, but it is difficult to recruit someone to remove it. Instead of trying to defend a good thing maybe we should be working on the backlog.... Bullock ✉ 04:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion from the nominator: Would you guys be fine if the template's instructions would be changed so that it should be removed from talk pages after, say, 3 months? It depends on the article, of course, but usually after a few months the fact that an article has been copy edited is a rather pointless piece of information, since the article is likely in need of another copy edit by that time. I really don't have a problem with advertising the WikiProject (not a very big problem, anyhow), and copy editing is important work that needs to be done. But a template that stays on a talk page indefinitely like that is just a really bad idea. --Conti|✉ 08:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I would support that as an excellent compromise. I do have some alternative ideas as well. I would suggest going for a six month expiration date, or perhaps saying something in the template about removing the tag if it seems out of date. I would also support trimming down the language of the template to streamline what it's trying to say. Something like, "This article was copy edited by :user:, a member of WP:GOCE, on :date:. If you feel this tag is no longer valid, or no longer applies due to subsequent changes, feel free to remove it." Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't find the compromise to be excellent. I find it to be based on faulty logic. To wit: "a template that stays on a talk page indefinitely like that is just a really bad idea." I guess then that all WikiProject Banners are bad ideas, as is the ArticleHistory template. Also, "usually after a few months the fact that an article has been copy edited is a rather pointless piece of information, since the article is likely in need of another copy edit by that time." Go back and find me three articles that have this template that needed a new copyedit "after a few months." If you find me three that did, I'll find you a hundred that didn't. For those who think that it should be part of the ArticleHistory template, I completely agree. But every ArticleHistory item I can recall also has a standalone banner (which is partly why it isn't used on every article talk page yet). ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 09:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
      • You're right, that wasn't quite correct. WikiProject Banners are directly related to an article, the corresponding WikiProject will always be able to improve the article somehow. The Copy Editors WikiProject can theoretically improve every single article out there, but reserving the right to add the GOCE template to every single article out there still doesn't seem like a useful thing to me. As for your second point, I guess that depends entirely on the definition of "requiring a new copy edit". I'm not sure where you get the idea from that Template:ArticleHistory is always accompanied by a standalone banner. That would defeat the purpose of that template: "This template combines all the featured content-related templates into one, to reduce clutter on talk pages (...)" (emphasis mine). The ArticleHistory replaces banners where it can. Do you still support to add this template into the ArticleHistory banner? --Conti|✉ 13:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I think there was a little confusion here. Noraft wasn't saying that both the stand alone and the article history items are used simultaneously. Rather, he was saying that every item that can be put into the article history also still has a stand alone template option one can use at their discretion. So adding this as an item to the article history wouldn't necessitate deleting the original template. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Commnent for nominator: From the discussions on this page it would appear that a compromise is possible if GOCE: 1) reduces the size of the Banner (not as prominent) 2) sets an expiration or archive date 3) places it bellow WikiProject banners (I did not know this one, but rectified that yesterday). So if nothing else we have established that GOCE members care, need to continue to recruit members, and are verbose. If these criteria are met will you withdraw this nomination for deletion? Respectfully Bullock ✉ 20:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, I will. In the end, 2) (a fixed expiration date) is the only point that I find really important. In addition to that, it would be nice if the template would get some clear guidelines, covering 3), or when to use the template in the first place. --Conti|✉ 21:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
              • (1) Torchiest is interpreting my comment correctly. Peer Review has its own template. Former Featured Article Candidate has its own template. They also have ArticleHistory entries. Where ArticleHistory has not been implemented, such templates appear. (2) Yes, I'd like to add this to ArticleHistory, and had already started that process, which has been hampered by this TfD, because they won't add it it until it is resolved. (3) I don't support reducing the size of the banner, although the other compromise points are fine. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 22:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
                • Alright, seems I misunderstood you. My point was that these templates are only used when the ArticleHistory template is not used instead, they're not used at the same time. --Conti|✉ 23:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • When an ArticleHistory entry exists, individual banners are not used, so I think it goes without saying that if GOCE is added to ArticleHistory, the banner won't be necessary. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
                    • Note: This template is only used 634 times currently Articles CE by GOCE. We are significantly under utilizing this recruitment tool. Just a random thought. Bullock ✉ 01:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
                      • It is most unfortunate that this has come up right in the middle of GOCE's May 2010 Backlog elimination drive. It is a bit like being kicked right in the middle of performing of a good deed. The drive has has so far removed the {{copyedit}} tag from over 600 articles, plus another 50+ requests (most without the tag). I copyedited and removed the tag from 10 articles yesterday, and did not put the {{GOCE}} tag on any of them as they were not lengthy articles. I feel sad that we are wasting time here debating this when only 634 articles have this tag. When there was a GAN backlog elimination drive last month, they had 74 participants. GOCE has half of that. It just goes to show that GOCE needs more publicity to recruit quality members. After all, it only goes to improve Wikipedia. Otherwise, we would have to read articles like this. — S Masters (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral with comments: I've used the template only about five times or so. Here is an example of an article I templated and someone made the template small, although I think it still has too much text. In my view, it is intrusive, but it functions to indicate that copyediting has been done and could prevent further tagging of the an article on the front page. Some compromises would be to add it to article history (as has been suggested) and to create a small (userbox size), less wordy template for the talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support for documentation for the tag and for a smaller tag. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep but minimized and/or able to be archived. I would have never known of the Guild of Copy Editors if I had not stumbled across the GOCE tag a few months ago. I have since joined the Guild and applied my professional skills to articles I would have never come by. It's a vital element of any article to be well-written – the GOCE tag helps to recruit new editors for this initiative, for which there are many articles in need. Noting a major copy edit is important to an article's development, especially as a response to removing the copy edit tag. I understand the concerns of intrusion and eternal existence, so let's address these concerns rather than take the extreme approach to delete a tool many find useful and/or important. dtgriffith (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The instructions on the template page are specific about how the template can be used. There are parameters to make it small, and on the side, which I've started using (I wasn't aware of them, and think they might be new). Certainly it is no less useful or invasive than the translation template. See Talk:Jan de Wit as an example. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The translation template is necessary for attribution purposes. Powers ^T 19:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, and your point....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
      • One is a legal requirement in order to be compliant with the project's copyright license. The other is not. Sheesh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Please assume good faith. The editor didn't understand the point. While this may exasperate you, expressing that exasperation on this talk page is not constructive. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 11:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I too would have never discovered the GOCE if not for this template. However, I concede that it may be annoyingly intrusive to some...I support the change in the wording suggested by Torchiest above; that way, other wikieditors will understand their right to remove the template at their discretion. This seems to me a better alternative than simply automatically removing the tags after an arbitrary amount of time. My second point: although in theory this tag could end up on every talk page, in reality it is used sparingly. I see it only occasionally and I myself have never used it -- though I may add it to a few articles I am a little proud of. Overuse of this template could become a nuisance, but as it is, it has mainly 1) attracted a few people to the GOCE 2) added a little clutter to the talk page. Bobnorwal (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I think eventualism is the right approach here; sure, the tag isn't everything everyone wants it to be, but that doesn't mean you slap the wikiproject for tagging the article, it means you make adjustments so that people are eventually happy with how the tag works. It's been a good discussion with many good ideas suggested. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Very strong delete. Awful idea. We're all copy editors, and one editor's contributions to an article are no more worthy of special documentation than another's. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the idea is not about an editor's contribution per se, it is about acknowledging the work of a WikiProject that is vital to the level of quality of articles in Wikipedia. Although theoretically, every editor is a copy editor, in reality, there are many editors who cannot copy edit to a professional level. If this was not the case, there would not be over 7,000 articles with the {{copyedit}} tag on it. Similarly, if copyediting was such an easy task, there would not have been over 60 articles on the Request page of GOCE at the beginning of May. The vast majority of these requests are made by experienced editors who are trying to go for GA or FA, and a large number of these articles fail because of copy editing issues. A very good example of the work of GOCE can be seen on the graphs and numbers here. To run thorough an article with an edit here and there is one thing, but to go through an article letter by letter, word by word, line by line, and editing it to a professional level is quite another. Editors at GOCE work on articles regardless of their personal interest in the subject. Such copy edits can takes many hours or even days. This work raises the quality of Wikipedia to a professional standard, and any efforts to raise awareness of such work should be commended, not shot down as a bad idea. — S Masters (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This would provide a useful reference for someone wishing to confirm that an article meets the B-class criteria, which Severe weather needed a copyedit to achieve. Now, if someone notices that it was bumped to B-class and remembers that it was C-class due to needing a copyedit, they can quickly verify the promotion, etc. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Why can't the template, instead of being placed at the top of the talk page, be placed in its own section, signed and dated with four tildes. Auto-archived pages would lose the template in 20 to 30 days, and non-auto-archived talk pages would have the template visible for all time, until someone came along and archived it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep if only for record-keeping purposes. —fetch·comms 21:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or significantly condense. Adding this template to a talk page (as in Talk:Klaus Baudelaire) is too cluttered and also has nothing to do with talk pages. It could also simply be converted into a category. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Per above. Gage (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Condense: Into a smaller looking template, see Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Sandbox. mono 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, most useful in present format. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep – lots of good arguments here. -Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Question: How long is this template going to remain in this limbo? It cannot be incorporated into Article History until this is resolved, which seems to be the biggest item everyone agrees on so far. dtgriffith (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  There are seventeen keeps and only four deletes. So I think it'd be safe to end this discussion now. The Utahraptor ^Talk 15:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  This is not a vote. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  Did I say it was a vote? I didn't say we were voting whether to keep the template or not. I just said that there are a lot of keeps, so we should keep it. The Utahraptor ^Talk 21:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  Counting the number of keeps indicates that the number of keeps matters, rather than the strength of the arguments. Of course, if there are seventeen strong reasons for keeping it vs. only four reasons for deleting it, that would be another matter. However, that does not appear to be the case. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  There are not seventeen strong reasons to keep, but there are definitely a handful, which outweigh the delete reasoning. This should be added to article history and kept. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Merge with {{ArticleHistory}} as suggested above, then delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I find it amusing that one of my copyedits was chosen as an example, but that is entirely random I suppose. The template serves a number of useful purposes: It marks the point in time when an article's prose was largely re-written, making comparison easier; it helps the Guild track its own usefulness, bringing in data that can be used to better strategize these activities; and, as others have pointed out, it labels the article as of interest to the project. Is placing a video game or history WikiProject banner on a talk page simply promoting the project out of narcissism, or is it for all the reasons any project tags? Things like how much a copyedit actually improved an article's quality can be gleaned, and onward. Certainly there can be discussion to make it collapsable or smaller, but getting rid of it entirely would take away a valuable tool. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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:FC Omniworld squad

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. delldot ∇. 03:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:FC Omniworld squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Out of date "current squad" template with mostly redlinks Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Underpopulated and outdated. --RL0919 (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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:F2DRow

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 per CSD T3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:F2DRow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption

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 Userfy, with no objection to moving the talkpage elsewhere if there is a better home for it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in article space and redundant to simply including an image: recommend substitute and delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete . Not needed Acather96 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- The template is not used, and is not needed. Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption -- its talk page, is I believe, important to retain. I think the use and abuse of templates are better understood now than they were in 2006, when I created this template. I didn't understand that using templates to encapsulate images was counter-policy -- but neither did the individuals who challenged this template, and several other templates. Subsequently another individual created some templates that weren't strictly compliant with policy, and shared some elements with this one. And there were extensive discussions about those templates too. I regard the former use of this template as a kind of experiment and I think there are lessons to be learned for those thinking about future directions of the wikimedia software to be learned from this experiment. I don't care where this template and its talk page are moved. But I think it would be a mistake to delete the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, then move, for the reasons given above. Geo Swan (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment -- Substitution would not be useful. None of the links to this template link through transclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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:AUS fb Preston in NSL

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) 01:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:AUS fb Preston in NSL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox actually links National Soccer League seasons, not Preston Lions FC seasons. There is already Template:AUS fb NSL to link the National Soccer League seasons. There do not appear to be any Preston Lions FC season articles, hence this navbox is not required. Jameboy (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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:Ikon

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) 01:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Only 24 transclusions in two years, so trying to nip this in the bud. Largely redundant to {{=)}}, {{icon}} and {{resolved mark}}, with many of the functions having never been used. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

delete Never caught on. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete Obviously redundant, a shame as it could have been useful. Acather96 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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:Arain of Delhi

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 per author approval. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Arain of Delhi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Arain (Delhi) already has a suitable infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and delete it. I have put in a new info box.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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:Hebe Camargo-stub

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) 00:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Hebe Camargo-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The scope of this template is way too small. i doubt it was even proposed at the right venue first. —fetch·comms 01:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Entry should be listed at WP:SFD.--moɳo 01:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It wasn't even proposed there, that page is backlogged, and I doubt it makes overly much of a difference. Do feel free to move it if you wish. —fetch·comms 01:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Didn't realize that WP:SFD was semiactive.--moɳo 05:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• From someone who spends alot of time in stub sorting - delete wether here or at SFD, Waacstats (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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:NoAutosign

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) 01:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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

This template (which I cannot edit due to its level of protection) and Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing allow editors to violate Wikipedia:Signatures.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 21#Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I don't think this really violates WP:SIG, as some people don't want bots following them around, and there's no real harm in the occasional memory lapse in signing. Usually, this would be rectified immediately, in the rare cases it's not, then one can always take a peek at the page hist. Unless someone is deliberately not signing his/her posts and avoiding bot sigs, or if a new user who doesn't understand the importance of signing somehow opts out, then I'd say there is an issue. —fetch·comms 02:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Between 251 and 500 pages in userspace transclude this template and there are 154 pages in Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing - it appears many people are "avoiding bot sigs".   — Jeff G. ツ 02:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the bot is probably annoying them. Perhaps there should be a template:donotannoymewheniforgettosignproperly instead. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Does anyone know how the lack of a signature affects archiving especially auto archiving by the bots? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It breaks it. Bots archive by timestamp. This is one of the most commonly-cited reasons to insist upon proper signatures. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would favor this template if it made the bot simply add the signature normally (without the "previous comment unsigned by" text), as that would arguably make it less annoying. However, having this template to altogether avoid having unsigned posts automatically fixed is not in the best interests of the community, IMO. It seems to me to be much more prone to be used for deliberately and repeatedly avoiding signing posts (which goes against the WP:SIGN guideline) than for the "occasional memory lapse in signing". So I think my proposal of having the template instruct the bot to emulate real signing rather than yelling "THIS USER FORGOT TO SIGN" is a reasonable compromise solution. What do you think? --Waldir ^talk 09:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  I agree. But that can be discussed independently at {{unsigned}}. Amalthea 12:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  I added the suggestion here. --Waldir ^talk 07:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Contrary to Vegaswikian's suggestion at CfD, I don't think this discussion is necessary over and above the CfD. If the CfD closes as delete then this template is useless and can be speedied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  Not useless. The bot uses the transclusion list of the template, the template doesn't add the category. Amalthea 12:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Jeff, you know that every user implicitly opts out of autosigning with his 800th edit? And that's a good thing, there are many situations where an editor deliberately doesn't want to have his edit signed. Asking questions at RfA, for example, or adding talk page topmatter. Those would be legitimate purposes to opt out of autosigning, even for brand-new accounts (think of admin alternate accounts used on public computers).
  A missing signature is no big deal. If an editor refuses to sign as a matter of principle, it begins being disruptive, but I think that should be handled by talking with the editor, not by bot-signing his edits. Amalthea 12:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  I assume you mean that for users over the 800-edit threshold, right? We can't afford to talk to every newcomer who systematically chooses not to sign their posts. --Waldir ^talk 13:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  Yes. Amalthea 10:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

  Why are users who have made >800 edits automatically excepted from the actions of SineBot (unless they opt in)? What is so special about that number 800? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 23:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  What number would you have in mind? Amalthea 10:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

  ∞.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as a personal favor. Read my talk page archive. The category came first, then people complained about having to categorize themselves publicly, so I added the template so that it could backlink check without any real public listing. If it's deleted, people will harass me to re-create it. I'll probably get annoyed, and I won't be happy. So, as a functional and practical favor to me, please keep it so that I don't have to deal with those people yet again, otherwise I'll be too tempted to put on the rouge and re-create it just to keep the message box off my screen. If you feel you must delete something, consider replacing the category with the template, instead. Second, the bot isn't there to enforce signatures, and it's not there as a convenient way to omit them, either. It's informative enough to give a heads up to new users, but annoying enough to keep people from abusing it by lazily never signing. The bot also isn't perfect in its signature detection, so opt-out categories give users with funky signatures a way to avoid it. Finally, in case it wasn't obvious enough, the color of the bikeshed should be white, so can we get on to other things, please? --slakr^\ talk / 15:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: For slakr, among other reasons. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Jeff why is your signature so large ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpearc (talk • contribs) 00:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What's his signature got to do with this... at least he remembers to sign. —fetch·comms 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My signature as displayed (excluding the time/date string everyone has) is nine characters; yours is twenty-eight characters, when you choose to use it.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 00:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, we'll soon move to LiquidThreats anyway, which will automatically fix this problem. Until then, there's no problem in giving people the option to not have their posts automatically signed. However, the template should be moved to "No autosign" for readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil IP address (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That page does not exist. However, the page you may have meant to refer to, LiquidThreads, includes a rationale which reads in part "Comments are automatically signed and dated." Upon implementation of LiquidThreads here, SineBot, this template and category would no longer be necessary for talk pages, although I am not sure if LiquidThreads would be implemented on members of Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure he just doesn't hate LQT and wanted to poke fun at it? ;) —fetch·comms 22:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to WP:AGF. I rather like the LiquidThreads we are testing over at the Wikimedia Labs LiquidThreads Test Wiki.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Snow Keep There are many instances where the bot will sign where it shouldn't and furthermore most people prefer a big brother approach (If you opt out and dont sign it will be a trout for you) over the big mother approach (Oh no opting out is far too dangerous, lets force our bot onto people).   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

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.