Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 6 February 8 >

February 7[edit]

Template:Location map Japan Okinawa[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, technically, redirects go to RFD, but this is basic housekeeping, so will speedy delete it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map Japan Okinawa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is now redundant to {{Location map Japan}}, after {{Location map Japan}} had been rewritten. – PeterCX&Talk 23:29, 7 February 2011 (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:RAScroller[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. T. Canens (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, self-reference, and for some reason links to its own talk page with "Suck?" EmanWilm (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2011 (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:IPA sidebar[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 redirect. Airplaneman ✈ 07:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This sidebar is incomplete and understructured. Superseded by {{IPA navigation}} many months ago. Maybe Redirect to save some non-main usage. DePiep (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2011 (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:Comprehensive[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. Airplaneman ✈ 08:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comprehensive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Hatnote. Produces: {{comprehensive|ARTICLE}} →
Main article: ARTICLE

By its definition, {{main}} does the job where ever this on is used. "Comprehensive" is unnecessary specifying, since it is used in section title like "Selective biography". "List" is a too specific word, because every list is supposed to be a complete article here at WP. Together, replacing the longer wording by "Main article: ..." is simple & clear to any reader (in line with the general principle: hatnotes should be as simple as possible, both for reader and editor). For specific situations there are hatnotes like {{see also}}. I have replaced a dozen or so; imo this looks OK: Alan_Moore, Ayn_Rand. -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2011 (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:Invitation to edit[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, but without prejudice to renomination when the trial has completed. T. Canens (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Invitation to edit}} is nominated for deletion. Cunard (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Invitation to edit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid). Additionally, the following complaints have been raised on the associated discussion page:

  • This implementation is intrusive, and just not very suitable for widespread use
  • If you are [running NoScript, etc.], then the template appears as a very large block of green text.
  • This…wants to add something else to some articles; permanent tutorial information about Wikipedia itself. There is nothing article-specific about this information. There is no reason why the information needs to be included at the article level.
  • The task the template attempts to achieve is impractical. You cannot teach people how to add reliably-sourced and referenced content in a few paragraphs.
  • not well-designed from a user interface point of view
  • Having the template at the very top of the page indicates that it is one of the most important things you need to know about the subject… in fact it is completely unrelated to the subject
  • the "You may edit this article" phrase furthers the notion that Wikipedia is unreliable because "anyone can edit"
  • The Main Page already states that anyone may edit

While this "study" and the ideal of encouraging and training more quality editors have some merit, the implementation of this template is not a good way to go about doing it. Better to delete this template now, rather than to let it spread like a cancer into more articles. 06:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. Would be happy to hear other ideas to increase the number of editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WRT this decreasing peoples opinion of Wikipedia, people need accurate information, yes anyone can edit and they can do with this what they will.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, it's intrusive and not very suitable for widespread use. It is a prototype, being trialled on 20 medical articles for a month, to test the principle, to see if it improves the quantity and quality of first edits. Please let us know at the project talk page if it starts going viral. If trials show the strategy is effective, and after widespread community consultation it is decided to implement the strategy, the design and location of the invitation will be determined by community consultation. This is a trial. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a good idea, and it's a trial. I agree it looks out of place, but if it's effective, we can always find a better way to implement the idea. I must point out that many people simply do not realize anyone can edit. The Main Page says it, but people don't pay attention to that. "The task the template attempts to achieve is impractical. You cannot teach people how to add reliably-sourced and referenced content in a few paragraphs" is untrue to a point; I do it all the time when trying to help new users and sometimes it works and other times people choose to ignore it. You can't eliminate the latter type of people, and the template's not the problem here. The argument that this template makes Wikipedia seem even more unreliable is a moot point; we have a general disclaimer for a reason and anyone arguing that Wikipedia is reliable is wrong; Wikipedia is based off reliable sources but does not claim to be itself reliable. There is no danger of this template spreading like cancer and it is ridiculous to delete this template now when we haven't even concluded whether it works well or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm on record as opposing this scheme, and some of the objections listed above are mine. I completely support the objectives, but I do not think this is the correct mechanism to achieve them - even if it works. All the same, the trial should be allowed to complete as planned. Thparkth (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the reasons above. A test is a test. --Garrondo (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominating this template for deletion is not the right mechanism to express opposition over the Wikipedia:Invitation to edit trial. That aside, it should be kept because the trial may yield useful information about how we can encourage more readers to become editors. Responding to some of your bullet points:
    • The template does not violate WP:SELFREF because it is not intended to be part of the article content. It is more like the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" tagline at the top of the page.
    • The template may be a little intrusive, but that is an argument for improving not deleting. We have been working on improving the template for some time and further ideas would be welcome.
    • If the template is not working properly in some environments, please report this and we will do our best to fit it.
    • The current tutorial is aimed at medicial articles, and the aim would be to include relevant information particular to an article, not general information. However, perhaps the same benefits can be attained by simply linking to this information rather than transcluding it. This is something that could be discussed in an appropriate place.
  • — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the wrong way to complain about this trial. If it works, then we should improve on it. If it fails, we should try something else. And despite the nom's claims that everybody knows anyone can edit because it says so on Main Page, I frequently find people who didn't know this. Maybe it's because not everyone stops off at the front page on their way to an article.
    I was speaking to a newly minted physician last fall who was astonished to discover that anyone could edit the articles. "I thought you had to register and prove your credentials and..." to which my reply way, "Nope, you're probably thinking of Scholarpedia." (As an aside: I do not understand why medical schools don't cover this as a critical piece of information about dealing with patients. It would take less than ten minutes to prove beyond any doubt that anyone can edit these articles—and that consequently, they should view the information with a healthy level of skepticism, and perhaps make an effort to improve their patients' health by fixing up some of the articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the way to enable such a feature is via a banner like the ones periodically asking for funding; show it only to IP editors, set a cookie when the box is explicitly dismissed, and give the cookie a generous timeout (maybe a week). For everyone else, this template is an obnoxious distraction. I agree in full with Willscrlt’s list of objections. –jacobolus (t) 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a prototype, in a limited series of small proof-of-principle studies. We are testing to see what (if any) effect an invitation and attached mini-tutorial has on new editor behaviour. If there is a positive effect, the nature of the interface will be addressed in a broad community consultation. This is a trial of a strategy, not a roll-out of a new template. Please let us know if it starts going viral. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- I didn't know this was happening, but it sounds like an interesting test! And worth trying ... a template deletion discussion isn't the way to decide such things, anyway. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This isn't the place to raise complaints about a proposal. --- c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 06:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A few of Willscrlt's points have some merit to them. A few have no merit at all. The fact that some points have some merit is the reason why this template is a trial, on only 20 articles. The significance of Willscrlt's points can be fully evaluated after the trial. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Delete Concerns that this is not the right venue are unwarranted. This thing is completely obnoxious and there's no need to waste any more time even considering it. Note that this TfD was canvassed on the medical project's discussion page. Gigs (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A single light-green bar, a quarter of an inch tall, on 20 pages, rises to "completely obnoxious" in your books? That seems like a bit of an overreaction. I'd put spam and vandalism in that category, not a good-faith effort to encourage new editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is for a trial. The template is not going to be widely used. --Yair rand (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep aside from the fact that its been added to John Barry (composer) which isn't a medical article this seems pretty good. I would agree that it should start out collapsed by default, but really you should just enable Javascript - pretty much every browser supports it and most websites use it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is part of an on-going trial. To put the template up for deletion mid-trial is quite disruptive when it has already been heavily discussed including at the village pump.Polyamorph (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has been on trial for a while on pain, and the benefits for the article have been minimal. The premise behind the template is good, but it doesn't work. JFW | T@lk 12:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still on trial, it's impossible to say if it does or does not work yet because the trial has not finished. The project talk page is here if you want to discuss whether it works. Polyamorph (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was put on Pain, a quiet, stable article, just to make sure there were no bugs. It is unsurprising the template has had no obvious impact there. The 20 trial articles are of lower quality and higher readership. Nothing can be inferred from the invitation's impact on one quiet article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons given in the nomination, and in particular because it is a violation of the manual of style in connection with self-reference, and because it is unnecessary: all articles have an edit tag att eh top, and we don't need a special invitation on particular articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ITE reads: "To encourage more readers to edit, and to improve the quality of new editors' first efforts". I don't think encouraging more readers to edit will improve quality. Most people who are editors here were already inclined to do this sort of thing, the vast majority of readers probably don't even want to edit. Wikipedia has a high learning curve, it takes a lot more than a simple invitation template to get readers to contribute quality referenced content. If this template becomes widespread I think it would only increase the amount of rollbacks we need to make. I think it was very well put by User:Thparkth on the WP:ITE talk page when he wrote, "I do not believe that a brand-new editor would have any hope of successfully following the instructions in the "Citing sources" section, for example - it simply assumes too much pre-knowledge. Just this sentence - "Copy the style of other references in the article" - would be the "I give up" point for many people." I agree with him that the task this template attempts to achieve is impractical. -- œ™ 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, easy citation for new users is badly needed. For now, the best we can do is explain it in the simplest possible terms. As you know, there is a strongly supported proposal to put a simple referencing tool at the top of the edit box by default, presently being considered at MediaWiki talk:Common.js. If/when this is implemented, citation instructions will be vastly simplified. As for the rest of your comment: the purpose of this study is to determine whether you are right. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get rid of this hideous creature. The idea of it being placed on every single article (which is obviously the goal) is more horrific than anyone's worst nightmare. It's gotta be cut off now, before it spreads. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a bit sick of this. Every delete vote has misunderstood this thing, except for one who thinks trialling this on one quiet article can determine its worth. It will almost certainly not look like this if and when it is implemented. It may be a subtle line of black text under the article title. It may be an elegant box above the infobox. I don't know. That's up to people with more taste in these matters than me. This is a trial of a concept not a template. The concept is an invitation to edit with a tailored intro' to editing, above the article. Delete votes that say, "it made no noticeable difference on Pain" or "I think it won't work" or "it's ugly" are no argument at all. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Anthony, it is irresponsable to "vote" to delete a template which is in use and part of a trial in order to stop that trial in its tracks. No one has ever said that this template will be used globally but it is absolutely necessary for research purposes. This deletion discussion should not be taking place, those who object should instead raise their concerns at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit. Polyamorph (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that I have "misunderstood this thing". This template is currently being used on dozens of articles. It is inconsistent with Wikipedia standards. The fact that it is "only" a trial does not justify the use of a template which is inconsistent with Wikipedia standards. I also don't like being told that it is "irresponsable" to oppose the use of this template. While I do understand the perfectly good faith intentions of those who are conducting the trial, they are at present using a template which is unacceptable by Wikipedia standards, and those of us who think so have every right to say so, and to express the opinion that it should be stopped. It is not at all "irresponsable" to do so. Finally, in answer to "this deletion discussion should not be taking place", why not? There are Wikipedians who think that the template should be deleted. It is perfectly reasonable for them to start a discussion on whether it should be. It is also perfectly reasonable for those who think it should not be deleted to take part in the discussion and say so, but not to deny others the right to initiate that discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the record I didn't say it is irresponsable to oppose the use of the template, I simply said it's irresponsable to use a deletion discussion "to stop that trial in its tracks" (in response to the comment above "It's gotta be cut off now, before it spreads"). I just felt it would be more appropriate to discuss use of the template on its discussion page first rather than open a deletion discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I agree with you. Clearly, from what you've just said, you think it is inappropriate to trial the template, as it stands, on even 19 articles, and that is a reasonable position, though I don't share it. I also agree you, and anyone else, have a right or even obligation. to challenge behaviour here that you think is inappropriate. Can I ask you how we could change the trial so it was acceptable to you? (Here or at the project talk page is fine with me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anthony, I didn't misunderstand. I don't care if it's green or pink or "elegant". The entire concept is bad and needs to be nipped in the bud. Gigs (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry. Can you explain to me, here or there what's wrong with it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. There's no point in wasting any more time on this. Gigs (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you change your mind, please let me know. If there is one good reason not to proceed with this, I'll jump at it. I really don't want to waste my time on a bad idea, and I really have some content I'd like to get stuck into. So, think about it. You'd be doing me, several others, and the project a favour if you could make a good case against this strategy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what it will look like when it's implemented, the idea of it being up on every single Wikipedia page at that particular location, regardless of its visual appearance (unless it's invisible), is not an idea I cherish. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying things like "every single Wikipedia page". I've followed this proposal almost since its beginning, and I do not recall seeing anyone support mindlessly placing this template (or any potential successors) on every single Wikipedia page. Can you show me one diff in which anyone has proposed using this template (or its successors) on "every single Wikipedia page"? And if you can't find any such diffs either, would you please strike these unsupportable exaggerations and replace them with something more accurate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The intention isn't to put this on every single Wikipedia page? Well, what's the intention? I don't mean the trials, I mean in the long run. What is this template for? What percentage or what type of pages would it be placed on? Maybe I didn't understand. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is to try to affect this graph, to discover whether an explicit statement that the reader can edit the article will increase the number of new editors, and whether attaching a simple intro' tutorial makes that easier. What happens next will be up to the community. This is a study, a series of trials. This is not a template roll-out. If you see it going viral, please mention it at the proposal talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that your answer, or this concept, leaves the chance open that this thing will end up on every Wikipedia page. Even if there's only a 10% chance that will happen, or a 5% chance. That's too high a risk for me to take, even if the possibility isn't that strong, as long as there is a possibility. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you don't like about that possible outcome, All Hallow's Wraith? Bear in mind the location and look of the invitation are changeable. It could be an expanded "Edit this page" tab, it could be a line of black text under the article title (replacing "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"), or some other option. If you are opposed to including an explicit invitation to edit anywhere on the article page, why? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's intrusive and unnecessary, considering we already have an "edit" button. The primary purpose of Wikipedia should be to be present facts, not to invite people to edit them. I don't mind what you just said about this template expanding from the "Edit" button that already exists if somebody were to press on it or something like that, but that's not what's being suggested. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proposition is that we insert an invitation to edit at the top of each unprotected article with a link to a brief, easy tutorial. How that looks, whether it's a template, where it is - these are all completely undecided and wide open to discussion at WT:ITE. Whether this is implemented project-wide, on only certain types of article, or not at all will, of course, also be up to the community. Here, we are attempting to test the concept so the community can make an evidence-based decision. -Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an unnecessary eyesore. Totally superfluous with the "Edit this page" button. Raul654 (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely correct. Now why are you opposed to trialing this template on a bunch of articles to see if it does anything to the edit rate? The template is so terrible that any short-term small-scale placement of it in order to understand its effects should be disallowed? --Yair rand (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A limited use template for a data gathering trial does not need to be killed before the trial is over. Patience, oh delete voters. Regardless of how the trial goes, it will be determined that aesthetics and rule-following are more important than usability and creating a welcoming environment for delicious new editors. Then we can kill it. --Danger (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if the numbers of editors continues to decrease at the rate it is we will at least at a future time have a bit more of an idea how to / or not to address this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - great idea, I love it. Wikipedia should have been using this from the day it began. Even for those who don't like it, surely it's acceptable for at least a temporary trial? Robofish (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is obvious (from the above discussion) that there is not widespread consensus for this trial at this time. This should go through RfC before being recreated. WP:VPR (where, I might add, it had a grand total of two supporters) isn't always good enough. --NYKevin @005, i.e. 23:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Proposer. Anthony
  2. "I quite like this idea, and I think it deserves a trial." Yair rand
  3. "I think it is about right." Dmcq
  4. "I think Anthony's idea is definitely worth a trial." Doc James
  5. "I think you have enough support for a trial." MSGJ
  6. "Support. I think this proposal will raise awareness and expand the ranks of editors." ɳorɑfʈ
  7. "Support. I am willing to support a one month trial on a limited number of articles." Axl
--Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template, no opinion on the trial. Common sense tells that the template should exist for the period of the trial. Once the trial results are made available, the trial project participants can decide what to do with the template. The merits or otherwise of the trial should be discussed elsewhere. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find "the trial project participants can decide what to do with the template" astonishing. We have a group of people who have chosen to get together and do something of their own choice, including introducing a template which many Wikipedians regard as inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. It is totally wrong to suggest that the members of that group can then decide whether the template is to be kept on their own, without the participation of Wikipedians who are not members of that group. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not presuming to speak for This, that and the other, but I took them to mean that, once we get the results from the study in, those involved will decide whether to propose implementation, further study or abandonment. Obviously (just look at this brouhaha over 19 articles) we're not going to impose anything on anybody. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's right. Of course, other members would be welcome to participate in such a discussion, although it would no doubt be initiated by trial project participants. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Relisted for an additional week of discussion. The discussion has been listed at WP:CENT because a broad consensus is needed for a change to the user interface how Wikipedia will be viewed by readers. Cunard (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have revised my comment. Cunard (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trials for things which actively disrupt the project (large new banners on mainspace, banners which completely break articles when JavaScript is disabled in particular) should not be implemented without wider consensus. There's already indication in the above discussion that this template has apparently escaped its cage and been deployed outwith the trial domain of medical articles. Personally, I reckon that even if a more welcoming approach to editing is required then it should live in the interface rather than being inband; nevertheless, it is certainly not established that we're missing editors who would somehow be more keen to edit if presented with over a page of tutorial text in a collapsed banner. For the time being this should be removed from mainspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the template is, as of this edit, transcluded in 19 mainspace articles, all in the medical domain. Thus, your concern that this trial has "escaped it's cage" is not bourne out in reality. The point of this trial is to see whether easily accessed instructions like this affect the number and quality of edits; the trial is the way to establish whether we are missing the editors who will be more likely to edit with this sort of help. If you have a better idea for collecting that kind of data, I would be happy to hear it. --Danger (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this edit, now reverted. To be perfectly honest I think 20 articles is a rather small sample if we're looking for unheeded new contributions, and from the discussion page for the trial I see no details on a control group to check this against. Right now I don't think this is anywhere near ready for a full trial, and the onus should be on the trial group to show they're ready rather than on the rest of the encyclopedia to show they're not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I am very troubled to hear what you just said about the template breaking articles when JavaScript is not enabled. If that's been mentioned before, I missed it, or didn't understand the significance. That sounds serious. Can you describe the problem please?
You say "it is certainly not established that we're missing editors who would somehow be more keen to edit if presented with over a page of tutorial text in a collapsed banner." Correct. We are trying to establish that very point with this series of trials.
I agree that the interface is the place for this, if that will offer the ability to customize the tutorial to the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, the control is a group of similar articles (high popularity, low vandalism, and low quality). The discussion about study design is here.. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The JavaScript problem is mentioned in the nomination. Without JavaScript enabled the "show" link disappears entirely in my case, while in the nominator's it expands the whole template (which will push the entire article content out of the way). That apparently nobody involved in this study has actually checked this in the week since the nomination indicates that concerns aren't being listened to.
I see the control group figures now. Am I correct in saying that the current approach is to check ten articles for a month to see if there is a statistically significant increase in edits? That is massively too small to be an effective sample.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the JavaScript problem is serious, the template should be pulled instantly. (I don't know what JavaScript is or does.) I'm running Firefox. How do I change my settings to see the problem you describe?
Re stats, that was suggested by James, but instead, we're using all the templated articles as the intervention group and will choose another group of 20 similar articles as the control. I agree, 20 is a small number and will only give meaningful data if the effect is large. If there is no significant effect from this small trial, the next step is to try it on a wider sample, or abandon it. The reason for the small trial to start with was that if bugs (like this Java thing) emerged, they would have less impact; the same reason we started on one article for 3 months. We're being cautious. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tools -> Options (or Firefox -> Preferences on Mac OS), Content -> Enable JavaScript. Reload the page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but keep a close eye on transclusions outside the intended 20-article test zone. We need to constantly work on finding better ways to encourage people to edit. In addition, we should consider the benefit of giving a better idea to readers (in easily accessible form) how articles are actually written. Rd232 talk 11:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close this foolishness Seriously people, we have 1.7 million stubs to fix with an ever declining editor base and you are getting upset over a template which is being tested on 20 pages to see if it influences editing rate. This Tfd is purely disruptive and may very well disrupt the trial, in which case it will have to be redone. Please remember we are here to build an encyclopedia. Yoenit (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting permission from the community to expand this study This present very small trial on low vandalism, low quality, popular articles, will not be enough to determine whether the strategy is effective. If this study is to continue, I'd like to extend the current trial from one to two monthes, to enhance its statistical sensitivity. I'd also like to follow this with a trial on articles that already have a high number of newbies, and a trial on high-vandalism articles. Your thoughts on that would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really dislike the idea of having any such template within the article space (modified or not). It is an eyesore that puts off the reader, and in my opinion the articles themselves should only be there for the readers, not for wikipedia to advertise for more editors. I acknowledge the need for more editors, but any attempt to get more editors at the expense of the readers experience is wrong. I'm not going to call for the template to be deleted (it is a small trial currently), but I will strongly oppose any rolling out of this over more articles. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the template has serious design issues at the moment, I think there should be some serious UI discussion before any talk of extending the trial. If the trial is to be extended it will need to be ramped out over massively more articles to produce any statistically significant result. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re your last point about statistical significance: if the effect size is so small that it is only detected by a "massive" trial, that would seem to prove the ineffectiveness of the strategy. If nothing significant shows up on a trial of, say 500 articles over 3 months, which is by no means a massive roll-out, I'd suggest abandoning the strategy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have to agree with the concerns about the visual size of the banner with Javascript off, as well as the amount of processing/download overhead it imposes when added willy-nilly to articles. But I also hear the point that it is something of a place-holder and might be replaced by something after an experimental trial. It is a rather pretty and instructive use of border-radius and box-shadow, BTW. I think it would be best to hold off any deletion action pending results and public comment on the idea in general, without any explicit decision either to keep or to delete. Linking selected articles to beginner help may or may not be a useful idea; I doubt it will really have much of an effect unless linked into some much wider effort. Wnt (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and integrate into the default CSS. If there is a JS problem fix the script, but we really need to get serious about inviting people to edit articles. Protonk (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we "really need to get serious about inviting people to edit articles"? There are vast numbers of people who edit articles. The advocates of this project seem to take it for granted that getting more people involved is desirable, without ever explaining why. As far as i am concerned the main problem is not getting more people to edit, but working to improve the quality of the editing that is already taking place. Clearly not everyone agrees, but to just continually assert that we need to encourage more people to edit without ever giving a reason is not a constructive argument. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. In medical articles we desperately need more good editors. I've been assuming that, all other things being equal, if more readers are encouraged to try editing, we'll end up with more intelligent, responsible editors among them. But you think the one doesn't necessarily follow the other. The intro' tutorial is aimed at improving the quality of their first edits; do you agree that's a worthy aim? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need more editors because the long term editor growth on wikipedia is plateauing, a fact which is all the more disconcerting because growth of internet use around the world and in the anglosphere is increasing. And while I would love to be able to wave a magic wand and invite only reasonable, diligent contributors that is never how wikipedia worked and was never how we managed to grow as much as we did in the first half of this decade. To the contrary, the process of converting readers to editors is idiosyncratic. We have a huge number of readers but only a small fraction of those readers choose to edit and they are not choosing to remain only readers because they are a poor fit for wikipedia's culture. They are doing so because they literally don't know they can edit a page, because the editing syntax is imposing to outsiders and because contributions from people who don't understand the culture are often reverted before those editors have a chance to understand why they might have been reverted. We can't fix the last two here, but we can fix the first. I also feel that a lot of the calls to improve the quality of contributions by limiting entre are insincere. We aren't really interested in improving new contributors, we are interested in raising the social status of the project itself. We don't feel comfortable working on a project which is regarded as a haven for trivia and vandalism, and rarefying the contributor base is one way to slowly change that impression. Problem is this is the stage in an organization's growth where we begin to convince ourselves that we don't need to grow anymore and what we really need is some general risk-averse retrenchment strategy. At an inflection point like the one we face today, this is the absolute wrong answer. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this should be on every article. Or else the edit button should be made much more prominent. If it's "instrusive" so much the better, the average reader takes Wikipedia for granted and don't realize it relies on volunteer editors. 169.231.53.195 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep simply because this is completely the wrong way to go about this. Wikipedia has had significantly falling usage for a long time now, and one of the complaints levied is that new users find Wikipedia confusing to edit. This template is the result of many discussions on this problem, some of which included Jimbo from what I recall (as he constantly points out the problem in interviews these days), and this is just one idea being trialled. I see absolutely no reason to delete it until and unless the trial is finished and it has been deemed unsuccessful. If it's being used on more articles than it currently should be, then remove it from those articles. Complaining about the current design/interface of a trial template is not legitimate grounds for deletion, as it can and will be improved. I feel demanding deletion for this is just overzealous, and inappropropriate until the trial is completed.--Dorsal Axe 11:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep at least until the end of the trial, and because it could be good if improved. However, it definitely could use improvement; most of the nominator's concerns are valid ones, though I do not think they necessitate deletion.--Opus 113 13:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least until we have some results from the trial. Some improvements could be made, and a larger trail undertaken, but this should be subject to a separate RfC or something. Herostratus (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continue the trial - and give the trial an appropriate amount of time, space and experimentation. Wikipedia:Invitation to edit appears to be a reasonable and rationale attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. The template is part of the trial, so that needs to remain. Raising concerns about the use, impact, design, etc of the template, even when only used in a limited trial, and debating such concerns in an open and collegiate manner, are appropriate, and are part of what the Wikipedia community does; however, proposing it for deletion was inappropriate, and is symptomatic of one of the reasons that new editors are declining. For Wikipedia to grow, and for new editors to grow, we must allow space for such growth - and space means room to make mistakes without fear of abuse, ridicule or quick deletion. This is an out of process deletion request (all article maintenance templates are self-referential) and it would have been better for regulars at TfD to have closed it immediately than to allow it to run. Now that we are this far into the discussion, and it has been advertised on CENT, it would be as well to allow the discussion to continue as it serving as an awareness raising of the trial and of the laudable efforts of Wikipedia:Invitation to edit. My personal view is that the advice and instructions given in the template are too long and complex and are very off-putting, and if I was coming to Wikipedia today as a new user and I read those instructions I would not have become a regular editor. To expect somebody to start off making high quality, perfectly formatted and reliable cited edits is like expecting someone who has never driven to take part in a Formula One race. People should be invited and encouraged to edit, and not to worry about making mistakes. It's all about making little steps, and being encouraged along the way. But I'm willing to see if I'm wrong, and to give the template a go. If it fails, it will die a natural death anyway, but it's worth giving it a go in order to encourage and support IP edits. At one time IP edits were the backbone of Wikipedia, but some new page patrollers are too quick to remove the initial small contributions that an IP makes, usually purely because they are an IP, and because the edit hasn't got a cite. The majority of valued Wikipedia editors starting out by making small, uncited edits as an IP. Anyway, be that as it may, I'd like to say how impressed I have been to see the patient way that Anthonyhcole has been dealing with queries about this template, explaining the situation each time, and not being rude or dismissive. That calm, supportive, polite and explanatory approach to others is how Wikipedia grows. SilkTork *YES! 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the purposes of the trial, but in the event we widely implement this, we will need to integrate the template into the user interface, CSS, or JS, as a template would not be feasible on each and every WP article, with regards to server performance and wikicode on pages. –MuZemike 01:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of a larger comment on the template besides kill/not kill, this is precisely my feeling as well, though said more eloquently than I would have. Danger (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until the trial is over. There is no reason to disrupt and approved process to prove a point. After the numbers are crunched, we can talk about getting rid of this template if it had no effect. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That assumes that if it had an effect that it's a good idea that's worth having. It's not. We can stick a 250px banner up there and it'll have an even larger effect. That doesn't make it worth having. Gigs (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gigs, are you saying more, better informed new editors would be a bad thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a tradeoff between making editing more discoverable and making existing readers annoyed. We could have an audio file say "you can edit this page" over and over on a loop on every article if we really want; we don't do so because it would annoy people. Large pastel banners fall into the "too annoying to be worthwhile" camp for me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, your opposition is to the the look of the thing, which is wide open to change. I'm curious as to the nature of Gigs' opposition. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please don't put words into my mouth. There are multiple problems with the template both in form and in concept, including a serious problem with the whole approach to collapsing as given above. I object to the wider roll-out of the template until it can be demonstrated that these are being taken seriously. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with you about the look of the thing, by the way. I'd prefer a simple line of black text. Or an expanded edit tab. And the functional issues you mention are being taken seriously on the project talk page. Your input there would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... you can't get much information from a trial if the object you're testing is deleted. —Soap— 02:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm still skeptical about how effective this will actually be, but I also don't see this as being actively harmful; we should wait until the data is analyzed before making a decision. In order for the project to thrive in the future, we need to continue to innovate. Frankly, most of the arguments in favor of deletion simply look like an aversion to anything new. People want to attract new editors, but don't want to actually change anything noticeable in order to do it. Mr.Z-man 03:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, some people have argued that attracting new editors is a bad idea. :). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Let's give it a trial run first, although the template could definitely be improved. Guoguo12--Talk--  18:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per everyone else on the same side. —烏Γ (kaw at me), 04:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Deleting is a moot point because the 30 day trial is nearly over. I'm opposed to extending the trial in it's current form and I'll post my reasoning on the template talk page where it belongs. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for trial, then review results encouraging more readers to edit is a major hurdle for the project, the sooner we begin looking at how to gain readers' interest in trying editing, when they read an article, the better. This is a reasonable way to start exploring that issue. It should not be strangled at birth by "we just don't do that" or "policy says". Some exploration and improvement may be needed, but the targeted issue as a whole is valid. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:34, 14 February 2011 (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:History of science trophy box[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) 04:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of science trophy box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very out-of-date. No longer used. Specific purpose unclear. No longer necessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2011 (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:History of Hittites Series[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) 04:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Hittites Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

3 links - WP:NENAN. Unused. Poorly made. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At present this template is not used in any article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2011 (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:Remove-section[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) 04:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Remove-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominated under (2) redundant of better written templates. This template, which has lingered unnoticed since 2008, marks a section with a big tag that it "should be removed", but gives no specific reason. If the reason is that obvious, and that true, then the editor should simply remove the section, which anyone capable of adding the template knows how to do. But in practice this tag categorizes 23 pages, and looking over about a third of these tells me that no section marked with it should actually be deleted. In about half these the sections looked unsourced and might indeed be removed if they are unfounded, but there is already a template for unsourced sections. In the other half this template was slapped at the top of well sourced sections which obviously need to be kept. It's a worse than useless template, bringing some (probably undiscussed) disagreement among editors onto the article page without saying what it is or how to really fix it. For example, if you edit the article to move some of the text out of the section to be removed, are you fixing the problem or making it worse? Wnt (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously isn't a useful cleanup tag (if a section is to be removed entirely, just remove it); that said, the existing transclusions all appear to be hyper-low-quality, and it'd be nice if the closing admin took a few minutes to go through the transclusions and see if the sections / articles in question can be re-tagged or simply removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should that be left to the closing admin? If it's worth doing why not do it? As described below, I have done this to a large extent. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks like a template for sections for deletion, but no central clearinghouse for such a thing exists. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete not widely used, extremely vague. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have looked through all the transclusions of this template in articles (there were 25 at the time I checked). In each I case looked at the history of the article to see when the template was first added, by whom, and whether there was any reason given, either in the talk page or in an edit summary. In several cases the template was redundant, as another tag also there covered the case, and in other cases the use of the template was clearly inappropriate, as for example where it was clearly intended to refer to a whole article, not a section. In the majority of cases no reason was given, though there were exceptions. In almost all cases someone had simply tagged the article and left it for months, in some cases for years. The substantial majority of them fell clearly into two categories: (1) sections which were so clearly in need of removal that there was no reasonable reason for tagging rather than removing, and (2) sections where the reason for removing was not clear, and the person doing the tagging gave no reason. Naturally I removed the templates in these two cases, with or without also removing the section of the article as appropriate. That left a total of four transclusions where, although I have my own opinions, it does not look to me totally unambiguous as to what should be done, so I have left them. If anyone else would like to assess them that will be great. It seems to me that a template which (1) is rarely used, (2) when it is used is almost always just left there for months or years, and does not link to a category or page which calls editors' attention to the existence of tagged pages, is of little use. Add to that the point made by Wnt that if the reason is obvious the section should be removed, and if not such a vague template is unhelpful, and the other problems I have mentioned, and I really do not see that this template is serving a useful purpose at all. The four remaining cases could all be dealt with by other means. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2011 (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:Fun4all games[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. Airplaneman ✈ 07:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fun4all games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with 6 articles (4 are redirects) including links to Little League World Series Baseball 2008 and Pitfall: The Big Adventure, in which obviously this template is not (and should not be) used. WP:NENAN « ₣M₣ » 03:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_7&oldid=1140154956"