Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 13

< November 12	November 14 >

November 13 edit

Template:Connecticut Whale roster edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Connecticut Whale roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Hartford Wolf Pack were temporarily known as the Connecticut Whale and reverted their team name back this AHL season. For some reason, someone created a second roster template (in the wrong format, no less) for the Connecticut Whale. However, the correct template has already existed for years and is properly located at Template:Hartford Wolf Pack roster. saint0wen (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, then restore as a redirect. Frietjes (talk) 01:01, 19 November 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:In popular culture 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) 04:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a prejudicial template. It assumes facts not in evidence and against policy WP:TRIVIA#Guidance which has resulted in content being unnecessarily deleted, attracted almost instantly by the presence of this template. Trackinfo (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess I should post a vote. I explain the problems elsewhere. Trackinfo (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Such content should be refactored or deleted as appropriate. --Rs chen 7754 07:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a pointy nomination resulting from a dispute about IPC content at a specific article. The nominator's statement that the template itself "assumes facts not in evidence" or is against policy is unfounded. The template assumes nothing; it is up to those placing and addressing the template to consider whether it should be applied and what the optimal way of dealing with tagged material might be. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be forum shopping. Trackinfo is in a dispute regarding Ventura Freeway and has disingenuously opted to try to win it through TfD. For what it's worth I don' think the section in that particular article is egregious, though as always it would be better simply integrating the material into the article as a whole rather than having an "interesting facts and movie appearances" fact-dump section. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not shopping. Ventura Freeway is an excellent example of its misuse, but I have no vested interest in that article or the content other editors have posted there, other than the fact that I now know it to be accurate and sourced. The entire concept of this previously unknown template takes issue with the content of a section simply because of its title. As if, any article with that commonly used phrase is bad. And by the immediate subsequent reaction, that content should be deleted. We are fortunate not many editors know about this or use it--when I looked it only had 16 transclusions. I am imagining the damage this could do if it were to spread. WP:TRIVIA#Guidance does not say to delete wholesale, as was done by the two keep voting editors above. It says "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases." It give advice on what to do. Specifically it says "Research may be necessary to give each fact some context or to add references." which none of them did. And it follows up with "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." But my concern is if this template spreads, what kind of damage this can do to the wikipedia project in general? Each time it will attract inconsiderate editors who, by reading its premise, will delete this kind of content in order to solve the tag. A tag is posted (frequently in drive by fashion--I've complained about that in my talk page for years) by one editor. Its a style of posting a personal complaint, though I equate most tags to graffiti. Its one smug editor complaining about the cumulative work of multiple editors, some of which has stood the test of time and review by multiple eyeballs. Once one editor deletes the material, its gone or at least hidden from existence. A non-expert would have no knowledge or opportunity to review the content or fix issues with it. Huge swaths of very useful content, categorized as "trivia" or specifically "In popular culture" could easily get lost forever based on this template and the editors who follow up to fix the problem the wrong way. If you have an issue with content, bring it to talk, research it yourself then, if it is factually wrong, go ahead and remove it. Use your brain. If you don't know something, get informed. Don't make a decision about what other people might learn from wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That lengthy list of personal attacks and boilerplate appeals to universal inclusion isn't particularly convincing. I would in general agree that the tag was inappropriate in this case, and that deletion of the entire section was harsh, but on the grounds of editorial discretion and not based on some collect-em-all notion where removing any content from articles is tantamount to book-burning. And in any case, while the template may have been inappropriate here it is perfectly appropriate on the vast majority of its transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:IPC, WP:NOTTRIVIA. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If content is trivial, it should be flagged appropriately with a template like this. If there's something wrong with the template, fix the wording of the template; if there's something wrong with the way it's used, fix the docs so that they clearly state when it should and shouldn't be used. – RobinHood70 ^talk 16:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the noms argument, but it is the case that content that does not meet our standards should be deleted. That is actually the case with basically all maintenance tags, a prime example being the citation needed tag. By using the tags, what we are doing is give the benefit of the doubt that some of the content is valid, and using the template to flag the problem to be fixed. This is a prime example of that, sometimes IPC content does not meet our standards. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Granted there is a lot of junk under such a heading that deserves to be deleted. If it would be considered on a statement or item level, normal editing can take place. But by placing a big tag on such an article, it attracts deletionists like flies. As evidenced by the Ventura Freeway article, 7 minutes after the tag was placed on the article, another editor (a keep vote above) followed up and deleted the entire section. Thats the cleanup that DOES result when you have a badly directed tag combined with inconsiderate editors. And anybody who deletes something they do not personally know about, without doing research, is inconsiderate. Trackinfo (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsiderate, but not in violation of policy. I'm not saying we should blindly remove all unsourced statements in the wiki, as it would drastically reduce the amount of good (but not verified) content. But I am saying that, if we did, when we added it back it better have a source, so as to fulfill our accepted standards on article content. I feel the same way about "in popular culture" content. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 08:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if there is no source, spend a moment and look it up. Google is extremely efficient. You put key words into it. You'll probably get the wikipedia article at the top but below that, on the first page, you will see a preponderance of evidence with the same information . . . or its probably junk. Take a moment and look. The problem is, and I suggest the wording of this template; the suggestion that by its existence "In popular culture" sections are bad and should be deleted. They are being deleted wholesale.

Deletion is a much more permanent act. When something is in an article, all the readers of the article see it and can fix it. BS doesn't sit around long. When someting is deleted, unless someone like me is watching, at that sequence of editing . . . it gone. Lost forever. A microscopic percentage of the population knows how to, or will, search back through history and talk pages or these backroom discussions. Those of us who do have to protect our assets. Trackinfo (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just used the template on the Jezebel article which has a list of unsourced trivia. I think it is useful.And why should I spend my time as Trackinfo suggests, trying to find a source for a statement that a character in a video game has "Jezebel" for a first name, for one example out of many on that article? I am not interested in that, I am interested in the historical/ Biblical character of Queen Jezebel and rewrote what was a very poor article on the subject,going to a lot of trouble to find sources, let the people who are interested in the pop songs with "Jezebel" in the lyrics or the TV shows in which one character called another "Jezebel" find their own sources.Smeat75 (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Petri Krohn likes this.
Conditional Keep, provided that the templates are slightly reworded to remind users about the WP:PRESERVE policy and WP:TRIVIA#Not all list sections are trivia sections guideline - with a reminder that entries which are undue or unsourced, but accurate, should be moved to the talk page for other editors to eventually improve upon that content or repurpose it. I agree with Trackinfo that deleting Popular culture sections on sight is a problem, but that's not a problem with the template itself - but with not following the wiki way of improving the content step by step. However, it's also true that In popular section tend to grow if unmaintained; while that growth is a valuable resource, it should be handled by trimming the sections to a "narrow theme" and moving everything else to a safe place, not by letting everything stick in the article; and the tag may help interested editors to find and maintain them. Diego (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The template already goes out of its way to list options preferable to deletion. There's no need for any further work in that regard. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added links to the editing policy that further explains the way to handle those unsourced entries. That should be enough. Diego (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful. —me_and 17:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This template is useful, and shouldn't be deleted until the last trivia-cruft in popular culture section bites the dust.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:27, 23 November 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.