Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 18 February 20 >

February 19 edit

Template:Non-DCAU DC TV animation 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).

The result of the discussion was relist to March 3. Primefac (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template. Template:DC Comics animated TV series covers all animated TV series based upon DC Comics, while this template lists those not part of the DC animated universe. Besides being unnecessary, it's reverse logic to have a template based upon something to which it doesn't belong. Soetermans. T / C 17:23, 19 February 2016 (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).

Template:Under construction/Rutgers 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. The {{under construction}} tag is acceptable (per the suggestion below) for students to use, and (as mentioned here and on the WikiEd talk discussion) the use of such a tag that just sits around doing nothing is not following best practices. Uses will be replaced with the UC tag as given below (including category). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a useful template? This template was created months ago, probably during the last class project. The actual articles were tagged about a week ago and it's not clear if this is going to be a project that's for a day or weeks or months but it's kind of a WP:OWNership tag on the article. The tag also puts the articles into Category:Articles in class projects/Rutgers which is kind of a weird category to have (it's currently under Category:WikiProject Languages probably because that's the subject). I'll bring this up at the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, this should not be in article space. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. It's no more 'ownership' than {{under construction}}. Students in class projects (and even their profs) get frustrated when their edits are repeatedly reverted; I for one don't want to let their edits stand because I will likely forget to c.e. them later. This tag allows us to track the articles so that we can give newbie students time to properly develop their edits and then review them after the project is finished. Rutgers' is intended to be an annual project, and many of the articles the students edited this past year would otherwise have received very little attention, so the project is beneficial to Wikipedia. We also have a problem of not attracting enough new editors, and deleting this template would only discourage more of them. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What class? What's the project? We have no idea what this is for and how long it's intended to go on. We don't let people put "under construction" signs for days or weeks or months so with no details, we should just ignore these articles because a professor has made a class assignment on it? I believe that the solution is to have the professor fork over a copy of the current articles into draftspace and work there. No one here will bother them and if there's good content, we can copy that over with attribution. They get reverted because we typically get a giant page dump just as the semester ends, unformatted and often without sources so yeah, it's not in line with the MOS and the professors can be frustrated but if I came to their class and just started producing papers without following their style guidelines, they'd be pissed too. You're suggesting that no one follow any policy requirements on these pages during the duration of this project? As to the benefit of these student editors, you are falling for the broken window fallcy and ignoring the fact that other editors will be discouraged by a giant "don't edit here, this is currently a project at Rutgers" notice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC::)
Kwamikagami, this student's notice asking that no one else edit the page until May is problematic to say the least. Are we supposed to just block off entire articles because a professor doesn't care to make a class project page and comes up with this as an assignment? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors,

Currently there are around 100 students taking a class at Rutgers University called "Languages in Peril." One Project for this class is to add information to Wikipedia pages for Endangered Languages. The students are only allowed to edit pages that are stubs. Students are also tasked with finding at least 10 academic sources relevant to the language they are working on. The class will end around May 17, with the students having added relevant information to the pages of their assigned languages. Each page will be reviewed by an instructor for the class. If you want to know more information from a perspective of a student taking a class please contact me, I hope you understand that we are trying to improve the pages and not trying to "own" them." Mdm260 (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, when I said own, I meant WP:OWN, a policy here. The problem I see is that while it's great for the students at Rutgers, we don't generally tell everyone else to stay away from particular articles like that and thus this notices aren't helpful. The students are free to edit but I suggest that they instead work on a copy away from the main encyclopedia but that's separate from whether this notice is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is another example of screwing WP out of blind obedience to a policy that's supposed to help WP. It would be like banning anyone with a British IP address from editing articles on British subjects due to COI. There is no real ownership issue here: these are stubs that no-one is working on, and this was discussed last year at the WP:LANG project and we decided this was the best way to proceed. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • A WikiProject decided that the best way to proceed was to give a series of articles to students in a class project and for no one else to participate? That seems like a strange idea. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete there is no reason to have a specialized Rutgers template. If we need such a thing it should be linked to a class project page (on Wikipedia, there's a process to do that) and be usable by any school, not just Rutgers. If the class doesn't bother to register a class project page detailing the class project, then they don't need a special notice template either. Further, this is not defining, so should not be categorized into that category, as a pure case of WP:OWN violation. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per user:kwami. Christian75 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: how is this not redundant to {{under construction|comment=This article is in the process of an expansion or restructuring as part of a class project at Rutgers University}}? or, we could add a |class project=Rutgers University to {{under construction}}? Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of those sound like reasonable options to me, which would mean this could be deleted —PC-XT+ 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, especially with a shortcut, the last option would seem to work well. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2016 (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).

Template:SDSU College of Business Administration 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXISTING -- Navigates in two articles (Lavin Entrepreneurship Center & San Diego State University College of Business Administration). Hard to navigate. The link Lavin Center link has been merged into Template:San Diego State University and has been removed from articles... making this template orphaned. 🇺🇸 Corkythehornetfan 🇺🇸 05:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Useless, seemingly promotional booster navbox --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 05:36, 19 February 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_19&oldid=708034132"