Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 1

< November 30	December 2 >

December 1 edit

Template:Android Kikaider 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. Ruslik_Zero 17:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Android Kikaider (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains nothing that isn't already linked through the extensive listings in the lead article. Worthless for navigation. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template serves the purpose of a navigational template. The articles linked in the template are not interlinked with each other, so the template serves a useful purpose in navigating between them. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason to delete. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2013 (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:The Witches of Eastwick 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 to {{John Updike}} and delete. Ruslik_Zero 17:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Witches of Eastwick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only four links, no chance of expansion. The adaptations can be put on Updike's template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as nom points out, unneeded. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since when does four links lead to deletion. It has been standard policy for a four-link template like this to be kept. If we suddenly change this hundreds of useful templates will suddenly be destined for deletion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough links to be useful to the reader. Four links is enough in my view.Blethering Scot 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I wouldn't advocate deleting this if Template:John Updike didn't exist, but since it does, I don't see any benefit to having this separate from Template:John Updike. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a pretty damn cluttered substitute for this content. P.S. the benefit is for prospective articles like the now hidden characters or if any adaptation has a notable soundtrack.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to {{John Updike}}. It's CSD:T3 really. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2013 (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:Hasty 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 Snow keep - I was tempted to do this yesterday, and it's even clearer today, that consensus is for keeping this. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template serves no practical purpose that I can divine. CSDs usually take from several minutes to several hours to be reviewed and actioned by admins, so even without this template, it would be very unusual for an article to be CSDed in under 10 minutes, except in the cases of blatant vandalism or attack pages.

The template has a negative effect in that it discredits and discourage new page reviewers who, in good faith, nominate articles for CSD based on their experience and relatively unambiguous guidelines.

The template has the potential for WP:POINTY abuse as well as innocent misuse. It seems likely that almost all admins and most page reviewers (except for very new ones) are aware of the guideline of waiting for 10 minutes before adding a CSD tag. However, there are many exceptions where waiting 10 minutes is not warranted, and may actually cause harm. It does not seem to contribute to improving the encyclopedia, and its existence seems to be a net negative. - Mr X 17:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I use the template and it functions perfectly for its intended purpose which the nominator's first sentence shows he does not understand, so let me explain. For those readers who might not know, there is strong consensus, following umpteen discussions at WT:CSD, that articles should not normally be tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of CSD A1 (no context) or CSD A3 (no content) moments after creation because some people start an article and then add the content. See the footnote to both criterion as well the suggestion to newpage patrollers to not tag moments after creation at the top of Special:NewPages. Despite this consensus, we daily get multiple A1 and A3 taggings seconds after creation. The problem is that checking timing is not often done (or thought to be done) when reviewing a speedy tagging, and so many of these articles are deleted within minutes. As an admin who has deleted thousands of pages from the speedy queue, I assure you MrX that your statement that it is "very unusual for an article to be CSDed in under 10 minutes" is utterly incorrect.
The purpose of the template is that when you come across an empty or context lacking article that has, against the consensus, been "hastily tagged" seconds after creation, you add this tag at the top to inform the reviewing admin of the timing issue, so that we avoid the creation→tagging-in-second→deletion-in-seconds problem. This template advises of the haste issue, and all it does is seek that ten minute window that should have been given in the first place, to see if the missing content we hope for, will be added in the few minutes that were not given before the tagging. The template contains a time parameter so that if the article is not fixed by the addition of the missing content in the ten minute window, normal deletion consideration is resumed.
One thing to note is that a common template deletion basis is lack of use. Unlike most transcluded templates, you cannot just click on what links here to check frequency of use because the template is always removed from an article within ten minutes, either by deletion or the speedy being declined. So even if it's used 50 times per day, at any given moment it may be unused anywhere.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent a significant portion of my wiki career reviewing thousands of new pages, and having nominated around 2000 for CSD, I believe I understand the intended purpose of this template as well as its intended application. I think the A1 and A3 tagging is mostly a newbie error, one which I was guilty of early on. I have to challenge some of the conventional wisdom though: In the time we allow (10 minutes) between when an article is created and when it can be tagged for deletion, I wonder what percentage of those articles are actually improved to the point that they meet our minimal inclusion standards. The 10 minute window is somewhat arbitrary, especially since users are plainly advised before creating articles to "please read Wikipedia:Your first article." (examplehere). I think it is much more effective to post {{template:Uw-hasty}} on a reviewer's talk page if they have CSDed too quicky (that's how I learned). I have only seen this template ({{template:Hasty}}) used maybe 4 times, including once today on an promotional article about a run-of-the-mill company that I place an CSD:A7 tag on. An admin placed the hasty template on the article exactly 10 minutes after the article was created, so it served no purpose. - Mr X 20:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you saw one misuse of the template is completely irrelevant to its proper use. That's like the argument (I've actually seen) of "let's get rid of CSD ___ because a newpages patroller tagged an article with it when it didn't apply". So what? Meanwhile, I see at WT:CSD that you were arguing that some pages should be tagged immediately, as if anyone disagreed, or that this template could properly be used for obvious vandalism, attack pages, obvious hoaxes, etc, when it actually explicitly states "This template should only be applied to short articles with insufficient content for assessment purposes. It should never be applied to attack pages, copyright violations, obvious tests, vandalism, patent nonsense and other unsuitable material." Uw-Hasty (which I also created) serves a different purpose but it has been ineffective to stop hasty taggings, which I know because we still get A1s and A3s daily seconds after creation and that's where this template steps in.

The simple fact is that looking at the timing of tagging is not part of many admin's protocol. They look to the content; they look at the talk page; they don't look at whether it was tagged immediately. I think the percentage this can save is rather irrelevant. You'll get no argument from me that most of the time the ten minute window will not result in anything being added. In fact, I know without doubt that that is the case because most A1s and A3s you come across even hours after tagging have not been edited at all. This is also a "so what?" This stops the deletion of no articles that should be deleted. If it works 1 out of 100 times that's good.

To put it another way, the 99 times it fails it causes no harm. However, the 1 time is succeeds it has great benefit. Here's how it ideally works that one time: Brand new user comes along, starts article with "John Doe is a mathematician". It's tagged 38 seconds after creation under A3 while that rare newbie is working on their second edit that continues on: "John Doe won the Fields Medal in 1948 for X, and his work was influential in quantum mechanics because Y, and was... etc." with inline citations to reliable sources. Admin doesn't delete because of tag; second edit gets posted; A3 is properly declined; new user is not driven away and becomes an admin two years later. Is that gonna happen often? Hell no. If it happens once it's worth it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think most administrators would delete a page inappropriately tagged with "Hasty", and think that most editors would use it sparingly and acceptably. Many pages are deleted in an extremely prompt manner, and this ensures that questionable CSD-tagged articles are properly reviewed. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep. If anything, this template doesn't get used nearly enough, as anyone spending more than a cursory amount of time at CSD will see. Until we get A1/A3-type templates packed inside a clock controlled #if statement by default, this template serves a distinct necessity. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I spend a lot of time at new page patrol, and I really can't agree. If it's so important to give users a window of time to improve an article after its plublished in live space, then let's put in a request for MediaWiki or Twinkle to prevent CSD tagging for x minutes after an article is created. In any case, I will continue my comments at WT:CSD.- Mr X 01:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I spend a lot of time at new page patrol, and I really can't agree" - That doesn't surprise me in the slightest, but I would suggest that it says absolutely nothing about the usefulness and necessity of this template, and absolutely everything about new page patrol. Like I said, anyone who spends time at CSD knows how articles sometimes get tagged and deleted right out from under the noses of article creators in the middle of their work. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Serves no purpose. Articles are expected to surpass all speedy deletion criteria from the moment of creation. These various grace periods serve no useful purpose and have never achieved consensus.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's utter nonsense. That's a ridiculous an unreasonable expectation. Expecting a new user to read my first article before starting one probably is like expecting us to read those stupid license agreements when downloading stuff. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it ridiculous to expect users to read the instructions before creating live articles on the 6th most popular website on the planet? We're not asking them for a legal analysis of a EULA. It's the instructions, and they're pretty basic. I waited two years before creating an article and I went through the review process. There is an endless flood of SPAs who's first edits are articles about themselves, their band, or their company. - Mr X 02:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is precisely why the CSD descriptions are couched in terms of "credible assertion of importance" rather than "meets notability guidelines." Anybody making an effort to create an article that looks like other articles on the site can manage to avoid speedy deletion.—Kww(talk) 04:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm using it a lot lately. There's a discussion on WT:CSD about its use/non use. Dloh cierekim 00:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As speedy deletion is much more prone to abuse than any other Wiki process, and the damage cause is unknowable to the vast majority of editors. That said, the text is much too long and it needs trimming. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Because this article was tagged for speedy deletion shortly after its creation $at {{{1|}}}$, and the CSD criteria is not critical - eg, copyvio, libel, vandalism, etc. - a 10-15 minute courtesy window for the original contributor to mitigate deficiencies is customary, and the article should not be deleted before that time." Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fuhghettaboutit . Properly used, this shouldn't "discredit and discourage" NPPers, it should educate them, particularly on A1s and A3s, so that hesitant newbies who input a few words and press "send" to see what will happen don't get discouraged by seeing a speedy template pop up at once. I agree the wording could be trimmed. JohnCD (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What about the template is there to misunderstand? Agathoclea (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly important. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —PC-XT+ 06:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep superior to use this rather than blocking the premature person that applied the speedy delete tag. I was thinking that these overzealous speedy delete nominators should get a dog dropping award or the decaying fish slap, but hasty tag and uw-hasty is in much better taste. Deleting seems to be an excuse for allowing premature deletion of articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a technological solution to overly speedy deletion of pages by editors who write a few lines and then save, repeatedly, and being tagged by NPP/EPs for CSD. We can have a edit/newpage list that start listing 24hours after the page was created, ask the developers for such a tool, and NPPs can see a second list. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with that idea - we actually want new page patrollers to be able to catch copyvios, libel, BLP problems and the like as soon as they get saved. So we kind of have two classes of CSD criteria, and this template is the way we enforce that distinction. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:38, 5 December 2013 (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:World-airport 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. Ruslik_Zero 18:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World-airport (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little used template that adds unencyclopedic information to airport articles and provides non-neutral links to websites similar to spam. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and these links do not add to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not appropriate for a template. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 2 December 2013 (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:Paleartic temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paleartic temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly empty (redlinks), malformatted, and I'm not seeing a real reason to have it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It is one of a number of such templates. Either you should nominate all of them or this one should be kept. Ruslik_Zero 17:59, 14 December 2013 (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.