Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22 edit


Template:Image width/1 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image width/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and undocumented. uses relative path names, so it's not clear how it would be used outside of a very specific transclusion. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sorry, I haven't had much time lately, but this is the inner loop of an unfinished template. I got stuck when implementing the binary search. When completed it'll provide a function for determining an image's dimensions that can be used by other parser functions. It can be used for an adjustable layout for today's featured picture. — Dispenser 11:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy until it can be developed into a working template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:23, 31 January 2012 (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:Local administrative units of Ireland 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) 23:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Local administrative units of Ireland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates the more comprehensive Template:Local government in the Republic of Ireland. The latter template is not big, so there is no need to split it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 22 January 2012 (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:Watchlisttalk 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 userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

only used by one user in userspace. could be userfied. Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or userfy per nom. Title doesn't describe the function of the template. Seems like {{al}} is usable in place of this. 70.24.245.198 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect if possible. mabdul 16:26, 28 January 2012 (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:VFA Ladder 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 as a test page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VFA Ladder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template does nothing (all inside a noinclude) and looks like a cut-and-paste copy of something from AFL Ladder. Frietjes (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2012 (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:Vasil Levski timeline 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) 05:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vasil Levski timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and not used in Vasil Levski. Frietjes (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2012 (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:Wdefcon/styles/sign 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 as housekeeping. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wdefcon/styles/sign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wdefcon/styles/level (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wdefcon/styles/info (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old subpages not used by template:wdefcon. Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (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:PortalPage 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) 05:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Probably obsolete. Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Predates the Portal namespace. —Ruud 21:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. --Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2012 (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:Shc edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A user-test, redundant to {{Coord}}. No further work has been done since the TfD last August, to address the issues raised there, or the accessibility issues raised in the same month. There is no consensus to support its "hidden coordinates" display (as opposed to around three-quarters of a million instances of {{Coord}}, with coordinates visible). Only used on one article, from which it should be removed, then userfied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: earlier TfD dicussion here: 2011 August 22. -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—my opinion is that the issues surrounding this template have yet to be resolved, making this TfD untimely. I oppose opening this discussion at this forum at this time while those other issues are still being debated at other forums. "There is a consensus to keep the template's functionality, although there is no consensus how to do this: to keep a separate template or to merge it into {{Coord}}. So, for the time being it is kept. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)" Let's get the various issues outside of this template resolved first, and then turn attention back to this one. Imzadi 1979 → 20:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Imzadi1979 indicated, this was closed as no consensus several months ago. This timely nomination appears to me to be a WP:POINTy response to this[1]. Andy refuses to work towards any sort of compromise that doesn't involve the extensive and unhindered use of the template he created, and the concept behind this template was one of those attempts from my end at least. The consensus is visible in the past TfD, and ongoing discussions have taken place at WT:RJL, WT:HWY and WT:GEO consistently since that August TfD. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely a WP:POINTy nomination. No work has been done since the last TFD because the issues behind it have not yet been resolved! –Fredddie™ 20:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep as development. See below. As a development, it could stay (with the right sandbox/test notification added). As a future standalone template, is it undesired: if such an inline & semi-hidden feature is useful (it could very well be), it should be a option (switch parameter) in {{coord}}. That way, each and every quality of {{coord}} is used, e.g. the option to use decimal coordinates. I beg you not to fork the code. Maintainability then would be, at best, approaching coord -- also in time consumed. A sidenote: I added examples to the /documentation. So far, I do not get the point of it. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the hope, should consensus warrant. Unfortunately there are two editors who speak for the entirety of the geocoordinates group and refuse to allow such a modification, using the current implementation of {{coord}} as the consensus against changes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, that background I am not aware of. Anyway, if it is test, it doesn't belong here at TfD. If it's OK for live, coord-clan should accept it. -DePiep (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's "background you are not aware of" because it's pure invention. There are no "two editors who speak for the entirety of the geocoordinates group", nor who claim to do so, and no editors who "refuse to allow such a modification". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my !vote into Keep - all with the same argumentation. I have read more background. Outcome of August TfD is not used by nom, this looks like just a second try. Even after multiple posts/comments here by nom, there seems to emerge no argument for deletion fom them. Much irrelevant reasoning, as I commented on my comment below. The consensus beforehand argument goes against my Wikipedia grain & experiences: just let it develop. Many other arguments are not relevant at a TfD. Nom's reasonings only lead to killing a development, or having it bogged down in a WP:GEO discussion/permission. The fact that nom did not link to, nor mention let alone use the conclusion of the August 22, 2011 TfD (which was started by nom too) I take as misleading and bad behaviour. I don't feel invited to apply AGF to that. -DePiep (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last TFD. --Rschen7754 21:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to those !voting "keep" - why do you think this test template, whose presentation does not have consensus, should be where it is, and not in user space, and why do you think it should be used in a live article, rather than a sandbox or documentation page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"whose presentation does not have consensus" - You must mean whose presentation doesn't have your personal approval? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re Andy. Let's just stay with TfD arguments. In your nomination we read: accessibility issues (so delete?), no consensus to support its [feature] (consensus beforehand?), redundant with {{coord}} (quod non, and contradicting your own feature-remark), used on one article, from which it should be removed (that's plain circular reasoning for a TfD). In August you noted Shc's lack of metadata (e.g. WP:UF -- anyone looking for missing consensus btw?): Another good reason to merge, but you did not pick up that solution at all. So far for non-TfD argumenting.
- Actually, nowhere (then and now) can I read what your argument is against the essential new feature(s) of {{Shc}}, or against this template's development an sich. Why didn't you start a constructive discussion at the coord talk or so? Is this the best WP:GEO produces?
- In the August 22 TfD, which you initiated too, your also stated no consensus to do this (no consenses beforehand?), and Any such change to the way we display coordinates is likely to be controversial, (beforehand again), and should be discussed at WP:GEO (then why did you start a TfD twice?). Also, not insignificant, in these two TfD threads you, Andy, read like steering into the mud of what is a not too exotic feature, and of a normal wikipedia development process. Why at all did you start a second TfD in this? Isn't this one more like a redo so closable speedy? As you write yourself: nothing has changed since the first one! Let me quote the closing admin then: There is a consensus to keep the template's functionality [but not on how]. -DePiep (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2012 (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:Supersonic fuel efficiency 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) 23:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supersonic fuel efficiency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Made up comparison table that really has no encyclopedic use and is original research. It compares the Concorde with the Boeing 747-400 which could be done easily in the article if needed. None of the figures for the Boeing 747 appear in the reference provided, and only one Concorde figure appears in what appears to be a self-published source. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: WP:OR and serves no purpose. - Ahunt (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I disagree with this, I see no sign of OR, there's no NEW conclusions being drawn that aren't drawn elsewhere (that Concorde wasn't very efficient!) I personally don't have a problem with the concordesst link, but it's not ideal, but I expect that this can be rereferenced later. And there's no real sense that this is made up, all the figures I've seen line up with what you can find elsewhere on airliners (I've seen these kinds of figures for the A380), so overall I see absolutely no reason to delete this.GliderMaven (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : No reason for this to require a template. Whether this sort of comparison should be used at all is a different matter. This sort of feul efficiency data can vary wildly depending on what assumptioons are made, and therefore comparisons are an OR nightmare unless they are taken from a good reliable source that is comparing like with like not comparing one figure that is not directly sourced and one that is not from a WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No need for this to be a template. The table can be added to the 2-3 articles where it is/was used. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2012 (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:CTHikingRecognitionPrograms 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; deleted as G7 by Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article in template space, which now Redirects to articlespace. Hu12 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2012 (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:Mothballed 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is only used on a couple pages and it seems like its not needed. The idea of marking a page as mothballed never really caught on. Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 14#Template:Mothballed ... 174.56.57.138 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is different to {{Historical}} or {{inactive}} in that the page tagged {{Mothballed}} was never really significant, but could yet be one day of use. This is exactly the purpose of real-world mothballing. Tagging nearly everying with {{Historical}} defeats the attempt to organise this sort of stuff. {{Mothballed}} should be kept to be presented as an option for outright deletion, as often nominated at MfD for old obscure pages. In general, I am for rationalisation of the taggery, having supported the merger of {{Rejected}} to {{Failed}} for example, but in this case it is better to keep distinct options available. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not used anywhere nearly enough to justify yet another "status" for a page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The template seems to be currently properly transcluded on three different pages. Without this template what should be done? Tag {{Historical}}? Delete? Leave untagged (expect visitors to check the history and talk page history)? Create custom hat notes for each page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{inactive}} could be easily adjusted to deal with whatever special cases those 3 pages are; they all seem to be pages belonging to some WikiProject. Why does Wikipedia talk:Wiki Guides/New pages need a different tag than Wikipedia talk:Wiki Guides anyway? In fact, if you look at the wikicode of the inactive template [2], you'll see that it already handles half a dozen special type of pages via the type= parameter. It could surely use some documentation though. 12:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that {{inactive}} should not be specific to WikiProject pages, and that "Mothballed" is conceptually a subcategory of "inactive". However, reorganising and re-coding templates should not be done by first deleting on e of the templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) And the most absurd part of that surely is Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, which unlike its talk page is marked as {{historical}}. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. The text of the mothballed template is also weird if you consider that it places pages in exactly the same category as {{historical}}, i.e. Category:Inactive project pages. On one hand the template says the page is of no historical importance, on the other, the category says the page is retained primarily for historical interest. Go figure. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion edit

Although I submitted this and Closed for deletion I agree with some of the arguments that it has some purpose even if it hasn't been used enough. Recently the templates for Inactive, Semi-active and defunct were merged and along with a new status for active allows us a cleaner and easier way to account for the status of a WikiProject. There are also several relating to User's and user subpages already. Perhaps something similar could be done here. Perhaps we could create a template, similar in purpose to the WikiProject status and User status templates for other content types such as forgotten or abandoned essays, guidelines and other content types that are being retained for some reason or another. --Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think that instead of creating a new meta-template to deal with minor semantic differences like this we should simply buck up and consolidate them properly. As with my last nomination for this template, the semantic distinction between this and {{historical}} simply isn't great enough to burden us with the maintenance of an additional template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2012 (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:Closed down 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 No Consensus. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Closed down (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is only used on a couple pages and it seems like its not needed. The idea of marking a page as closed down never really caught on. Kumioko (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.
Logically, there is a need for this template. Not infrequently, especially at MfD, someone seeks to shut down some activity. Typically, they nominate for deletion, with the apparent expectation that deletion will make the whole problem (whatever it is) “go away”. Offering this template serves to offer a reasonable solution, but more importantly, serves to focus the discussion on what the discussion is seeking to do. This has happened a few times – the template should be kept for the historical record of those debates, and there no reason to think that similar discussions won’t continue. In fact, there are two applicable discussions nominated at MfD today, related SOPA
This template is related to {{historical}}, but is distinctly different. A page properly marked {{historical}} was in the past significant but inactivity was a major factor in its decline. {{closed down}} is to be applied to active, pages despite activity, as a decision by the larger community overruling a small group.
The fact that this page tags few pages is a good thing and is not a reason for deletion. The number of {{Closed down}}-tagged pages is a measure of discord within the Wikipedian community. Deleting the measure does not diminish the discord. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If I'm not mistaken, it has no transclusions. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, it has purpose without actual transclusions. There are, however, a number of past decisions that closed down activies in spite of the wishes of the participants. Wikipedia:Esperanza for example. I didn't seek to re-tag such pages because I don't think it is helpful to rewrite history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, it's a template kept in case major assholery becomes desirable?! Make that strong delete then. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a minor purpose in focusing discussions, especially at MfD, on the fact that some wikipedians are trying to shut down existing activities of other Wikipedians. (often, this has been for good reason) Why do you consider the focussing of a discussion to be "major assholery"? I presume that I completely misunderstand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion edit

Although I submitted this and Closed for deletion I agree with some of the arguments that it has some purpose even if it hasn't been used enough. Recently the templates for Inactive, Semi-active and defunct were merged and along with a new status for active allows us a cleaner and easier way to account for the status of a WikiProject. There are also several relating to User's and user subpages already. Perhaps something similar could be done here. Perhaps we could create a template, similar in purpose to the WikiProject status and User status templates for other content types such as forgotten or abandoned essays, guidelines and other content types that are being retained for some reason or another. --Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you might have a good plan there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess what we need to do now is decide what to call it and what status's are needed. Certainly we need Inactive and possibly closed down although I would argue its the same thing. --Kumioko (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see why there is “need”. Merging similar templates and using parameters to account for the variations may seem more elegant to the programmer, but it makes their use harder for the unskilled editor, and to me it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of “need”. Using separate templates has a clear advantage with regards to the “what links here” feature.
Inactive, Semi-active and defunct were unambiguously WikiProject templates, weren’t they? Closed down was not intended for WikiProjects, but for any unappreciated page with unappreciated activity, such as not enough related to the project, or noticeboards with negative net benefit.
I think you have productive ideas, but I am not comfortable with weak declarations of “need” in a deletion discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to come to a compromise on a template that knowone seems to really use anyway. Its been around for what, a couple years now, I just noticed this is the 2nd time its been submitted for deletion and its still not used. I'm wondering if there is "need" at all. --Kumioko (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is unused and the semantic difference between it and templates such as {{historical}} which are used is minimal. We needn't continue to host this on the off chance that someone has a tiny quibble with the wording of {{historical}} in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please userfy for me, in case I regain an interest in this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2012 (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:Incomplete 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 Merge. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose merging into :Template:Expand further (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) The term incomplete seems odd as all Wikipedia articles are incomplete. Both of them add the articles to the same category. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge indeed. In fact, as the nom states, "Incomplete" should be deleted. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I agree. --Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some poking around and found that this template has been nom'ed several times, as far back as 2005 and as recently as Oct 2011. It was usually deleted, but it seems to keep getting resurrected. The Expand further template (created in 2006) was not mentioned in previous discussions, probably because it was not at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup (I just added it there). Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/September_2005#Template:_Incomplete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Incomplete#Should_be_deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_4#Template:Incomplete
Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And some more about Template:Expand:
Wikipedia:Alternatives_to_the_"Expand"_template
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_17#Template:Expand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_16#Template:Expand
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27
Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also:
Template:Expand section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Template:Expand list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages). -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the templates and how they are currently used, {{incomplete}} and {{expand}} seem intended to serve the same purpose. Strangely, I don’t see transclusions of {{expand}} in the long list, while I do for {{incomplete}}. {{incomplete}} seems to be properly used on simple, undeveloped, and not robustly sourced articles. These two could be merged, and I prefer the wording of “expand” to “incomplete”. Otherwise, the merge would go the other way. I guess that the awkwardness of {{incomplete}} and expectation to find {{expand}} is the reason why {{expand}} is repeatedly created.
{{expand further}} is used on more advanced articles, and makes reference to existing sources. It serves a distinct purpose to {{expand}} and should not be merged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable way to solve the now triangular problem. Then entering this: {{expand}} is deleted Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_16#Template:Expand. -DePiep (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More discussion - I've gathered much more information since I started this discussion and have now changed my mind about merging Template:Incomplete into Template:Expand further. Because many of the available templates used for expanding articles are not listed in help pages or are otherwise difficult to locate, I was unaware of all of them and how they related to one another, and how they are used.
I still believe that Template:Incomplete should be deleted, I'm not sure where it should be merged into. Because of the ambiguity of its usage, many of the articles tagged with it should have been tagged with another template. I've created a table of all the templates I was able to find. I'm sure many who have contributed to this discussion were unaware of of at least some of the information presented in the table.
I suggest that we continue the discussion with this additional information, and reevaluate how Template:Incomplete could be absorbed by the other templates.
Message templates used for expansion (as of 04:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC))
Template Transclusion count Usage (per doc) Categories added (per /doc)
Template:Biblio 40 citations Category:Articles lacking ISBNs
Template:Complete 83 completed lists none
Template:Empty section 43289 empty sections Category:Articles to be expanded
Template:Expand (no longer used)
Template:Expand further 667 "Further reading" section Category:Articles to be expanded with sources

Category:Articles to be expanded

Template:Expand section 19745 in sections,

optional description param.

Category:All articles to be expanded

Category:Articles to be expanded

Template:Expand list 12212 immediately before any incomplete list Category:Incomplete lists
Template:Incomplete 1699 anything and everything Category:Articles to be expanded
Template:Incomplete list 313 (redirected to Template:Expand list)
Template:Incomplete section 8 (redirected to Template:Expand list)
Template:ISBN 359 missing ISBN's in cites Category:Articles lacking ISBNs
Template:Lacking overview 5 articles that lack a general overview of topic Category:Wikipedia articles needing context

Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup

Template:Missing 10 refers to Template:Expand,

some parameter(s) don't work

none
Template:Missing information 256 suggest additions on talk page Category:Accuracy disputes
Template:Missing information non-contentious 42 suggest specific additions in parameter Category:Accuracy disputes
plus dozens of subject-specific and media-specific templates, and redirects
Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ironically, I just found another:
Template:Incomplete table (Template:Incomplete table no longer used)
Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow thats great research thanks, that definately shows a big problem that needs to be worked on. --Kumioko (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no current merge target. Please reread the discussion. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of TMI, I did a pseudo-random sampling of articles tagged with Template:Incomplete (N=35) and got these results:
  • Aging
    • 0-1 years - 45%
    • 1-2 years - 16%
    • 2-3 years - 34%
    • 3-4 years - 0%
    • 4-5 years - 5%
  • Usage
    • At top of page - 37%
    • In a section - 17%
    • List / table - 40%
    • At bottom - 6%
Only 6% of the articles had a mention on the talk page explaining why they were tagged. About 20% were tagged to user pages, and many of the older tagged articles still had little or no additional development to the article. So it's being used incorrectly and it's not even working when it is used right. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are less older templates indicates that it is working. Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
No that is not indicated. It only indicates that it is placed on youger pages more often -- no thing more. There is no suggestion that it was (workingly) deleted from old pages. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I think this has to be a keep because part of the reason that Expand was deleted was that for truly incomplete articles there was {{Incomplete}} available. It is worrying that poeple discussing this did not seem aware that {{Expand}} was deleted. What should we put on an article which needs an additional section? I think of these deletions all succeed we would have to put {{Cleanup|reason=needs additional section on birds living in his beard}} - but wait! {{Tlx|Cleanup is also at Tfd.... Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Using like {{cleanup}} with required Rationale=... would solve it. That a template is fD'd elsewhere or says that it is approached fragmentated, not that arguments for deletion & future usage are idle. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern about the {{expand}} ignorance, Rich. With regard to an alternative to the function served by {{expand}} or {{incomplete}}, I feel better alternatives exist, i.e., alternatives which would result in better articles. Using the example above, I think simply == Birds living in his beard == is enough to get the point across that the article (section) needs more. If the tagger wants to communicate details about what they would like added, they can put it on the talk page -- an editor setting out to make a major edit, like developing a new section, should be looking at the talk page first anyway. If you want to draw more attention to the article, it can be added to Category:Articles to be expanded or some other maintenance category. Most of the articles tagged with the {{incomplete}} template have been that way for a year or more. Using the talk page/category approach outlined above, at least while the article is awaiting improvement, it's not devalued by having a conspicuous message pointing out its flaws to every casual viewer. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are in Category:Articles to be expanded. And, yes if you are talking about a mainstream article talk page is important, but most talk pages are empty apart from those project banners. There are people working very hard on the backlog (there is a backlog drive on right now, but there are always people working on it) deleting the templates throws away information. We have backlogs ranging from a few days to years, deleting the templates does not make the backlogs go away, it simply blinds us to them. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
You have a good point regarding existing articles. (I intended my comments to be about future alternatives in the absence of {{expand}} or {{incomplete}} and how to handle a fresh article that had never been tagged.) Regarding existing articles, yes, we need to preserve that data somehow. What if, instead of deleting the whole template, we kept the code that categorizes the articles, and maybe some <!-- editor's comments -->, that way the articles could still be found and worked on. The deprecated template page and doc could be preserved for historical reference and to guide editors (who happen to stumble onto the template page) to better alternatives -- like using a maintenance category along with the article's talk page. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:53, 7 February 2012 (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/2012_January_22&oldid=1136066858"