Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 17

< June 16	June 18 >

June 17 edit

Template:Priestess 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) 21:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Having read WP:NENAN, and recently having TfD-ed the obsolete template for the band Scale the Summit, I find Priestess prove just as frustratingly elusive a topic of research in some areas as the songs of Scale the Summit. This band has two albums, only one of their band members has a page, and that's it. I don't see the need to have this template anymore, especially since the singles are so hard to find & verify and it doesn't seem terribly likely they will release any new music, at least not in the near future. It won't be too hard to link to and from all four entries in the template that actually have articles. LazyBastard Guy 15:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, articles are already well connected (or could be with a see also section if necessary). Frietjes (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not about priestess -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two albums to link, which doesn't need a navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 21 June 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:Philosophy reference resources 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, and it looks like Frietjes has merged all the transclusions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Resources, so nothing will be lost by removing the external link lists from the categories. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philosophy reference resources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The creator says that the only real purpose of this template is to put it on category pages, which violates WP:External links#EL18. Therefore, there do not seem to be any policy-compliant uses and should be deleted per WP:TFD#REASONS #4: violates a policy (or guideline) and can't be fixed through normal editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- This template was a lot of effort, and its purpose is to provide links to reliable, credible reference resources, which is one of the most important services Wikipedia provides. Specifically, it makes links from our categories to the categories of the InPho, SEP, and PhilPapers websites. All three of these websites are well established as academic, scholarly, credible and reliable sources in the area of Philosophy. Originally, I had asked the American Philosophical Association if they had established a standardized classification system for philosophy subject matter. They had not, so these websites have served as guides for the creation and organization of philosophy categories. We have one editor who has made it a crusade to get rid of this template. The categorization policy was amended without achieving a consensus, and in an ex post facto manner so as to target this template particularly. Originally this issue came up because a now banned editor made it an issue. Can we please use some common sense here, as the purpose of the policy is to avoid a proliferation of spam links. That is obviously not an issue in this case, and this is not what this policy is supposed to be targeting. Greg Bard (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of hard work put into an article and the intent behind it do not matter. Saying something must be kept just because "so-and-so worked so hard on it" is not a valid argument to make. There are plenty of things that were on Wikipedia for years and had the help of many people or a few dedicated individuals who worked day-in and day-out on it only to see deletion in the end. The work you put into a Wikipedia topic is irrelevant; it must adhere to all relevant guidelines at the time of submission or else it may be deleted. LazyBastard Guy 07:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I did make other valid arguments, if you bothered to read past the first phrase (much less the whole sentence). Gee, sorry I mentioned the effort at all. Apt username, btw. Greg Bard (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did read the post, and the intended insult is not helping your case. I read it very carefully and didn't post until after I put a lot of thought into it. To me, it really didn't seem like you were doing much more than making an appeal to the effort put into it, or how much you've been through to get this thing to work. I apologize if it came off as rather rude, I honestly didn't mean for that. But I still stand by my point that putting a lot of effort into something makes no difference if it still doesn't conform to guidelines. If it's any consolation, I'm sorry all that hard work on your part might go to waste if this template gets deleted. LazyBastard Guy 20:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you say so, then I believe you. However, it is hard to believe, since I spent exactly six words mentioning my effort, and a large paragraph mentioning valid reasons to keep the template. Whereas, you spent a large paragraph going on and on about how one's effort doesn't matter to anyone. I do appreciate your words of consolation, however. It's a complete waste for no good reason, and I will have to get over it. I wonder as a show of good faith, if you and Frietjes (below) would volunteer your efforts to remedy the situation (there are only about 1600 philosophy categories to compile into an organized list in the Wikipedia namespace, and which may have such external links). Greg Bard (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the 53 transclusions into Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Resources. Frietjes (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date that WP:EL added a prohibition on external linka in categories: 06 May 2009.
Date that Greg created his template to add external links to category pages: 12 September 2012.

I don't believe that any ex post facto efforts to target Greg's template were involved here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he's trying to get us to see is that somehow this template is not in violation of that rule. Even though said rule is very to the point and does not make the specification he said it made earlier, which was to prevent spam links; I quote in full, "External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages." The top of this rule chart says, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, [we should avoid these sorts of links or putting them in these sorts of places]." Note, it says "article", not "category" - categories are distinct from articles. All I'm saying is the policy seems quite clear to me on this matter. LazyBastard Guy 01:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if there were not a prohibition of using links on category pages, there is no likely good purpose for the template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, the better place to collect external links is on a subpage of the corresponding WikiProject, then place a pointer to that page from the category page (if such a link is even needed at all). Frietjes (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well? (see above) -GB

easy to do if you just make a bot request. just need a concrete description of the task and a bot could do it. Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with previous discussions of Gregbard's experiments in categoryspace templates, I'd far rather that he asked the project at large to consider adopting them than simply rolling out arbitrary things of his own design in a piecemeal manner within his own areas of interest. That applies particularly in this case where we've plainly contradictory existing guidelines. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Extensive Prior discussions (all in March) can be found at WP:VPP/Archive 104#Policies about Categories and Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Reference resources. (I do wish people would link these things, more often. Sure, no-one reads them thoroughly, but the option is nice!) –Quiddity (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took your suggestion, and my conclusion is that categories are meant only for organizational purposes of internal links. They contain three things: wikilinks to articles contained within the categories, wikilinks to subcategories, and wikilinks to supercategories. From time to time there are templates with wikilinks (that is, internal links) displaying related categories that otherwise aren't mentioned on the page, as articles, subcategories or supercategories. External links on category pages run several risks, chief among them being content forking, POV promotion on behalf of the editor and possibly even copyright. (Note: I said "run risks," I did not say it actually had these shortcomings by default.)

My main concern is with the selection of links. Would everyone see them the same way? Would everyone agree with their authority? What if someone else wanted a completely different set of links? Are there any limitations on the content of the template itself, even if the limitation preventing its inclusion is overcome?

I'm speaking strictly about Wikipedia here, not the subject of these categories (they could be culinary arts categories with links to Emeril's website for all I care). Categories contain entries, entries contain information. Wouldn't the information best be presented on those entries rather than in categories, which are by themselves not meant to be informative? I don't understand why categories have to have external links at all. To me, they belong on related article pages, not category pages. I don't see how having them on category pages is constructive. Categories are solely for organizational and navigational purposes within the wiki.

I think the issue is not that this template is getting deleted, but that policy forbids what it's trying to do and Mr. Bard here (all due respects, sir) wants policy to change. We do have a process for that, but WP:TFD isn't where it should happen in this case. LazyBastard Guy 04:55, 21 June 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.