Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 17 June 19 >

June 18[edit]

Template:Album ratings prose[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) 22:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Album ratings prose (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

To use this template one must create an empty section that serves no purpose. A better alternative exists which is the "noprose" parameter in {{Album ratings}}. The template should therefore be deprecated in favor of "noprose" parameter. Removal can be quite easy and semi-automatic if consensus exists. Strictly speaking, this falls under reason #2 "The template is redundant to a better-designed template". Muhandes (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and for substantially the same reasons that {{Empty section}} is currently nominated for deletion.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Ohms law. Empty sections are unsightly and since when are articles required to have a specific section filled out with prose? The Album ratings has an optional parameter that suggests the creation of a section, without the need for an empty section to be created, which is nice. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No page requires expansion, but the consensus is that an unaccompanied {{album ratings}} chart fails to meet the wikiproject's quality standards. But I agree that there are much better ways to accomplish this without another maintenance tag. —Akrabbimtalk 15:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with what Muhandes, Ohms law, and Keraunoscopia have said. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the album ratings template has a flag for this, I reckon the correct solution here would be to convert this to just call {{prose}} before substituting and deleting. That's the real redundancy here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the same issue. {{prose}} is used when a list includes most of the information, but in the incorrect form. That is, the list is representative of the data, but in the wrong format. This template was used because the consensus is that review scores do not even represent the data. --Muhandes (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right: in that case I suppose this is just a hyper-specialised version of {{expand section}}. We don't really need that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, except we don't even need the empty section if the noprose parameter is used. --Muhandes (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. When I first started updating the albums to the new ratings entry templates, I thought adding the empty section looked terrible. I was not aware this alternate approach was available. This is certainly much better looking to the user and still enables editors to see where they can add the prose. § Music Sorter § (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we reach consensus I assume we will further update the instructions on the Template:Album ratings page to clarify use of the new parameter. Maybe that was obvious. § Music Sorter § (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is already documented, though you are free to add clarification if you think it is needed. --Muhandes (talk) 08:42, 26 June 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:Notability[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 Withdrawn by nominator, all other comments were in favour of keeping (though acknowledging that thereare some problems with the use of the template). Fram (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The main function of this template appears to be that it functions as a "badge of shame" on the articles that it is placed on. Articles which actually have issues with notability should be prodded and/or nominated for deletion (AFD'ed), not simply tagged. There's no clear criteria to add the tag, and the biggest problem is that there's no clear reason to remove the template. It appears that in most cases the template is added but is never removed, leading to the current situation where we apparently have 10's or 100's of thousands of uses that will probably never go away.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This template is less of a slap in the face than {{prod}} in situations where a new article is missing essential information. I agree that leaving it on an article for years on end is not a good thing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the prod process is a deletion process there's no chance of a prod tag sticking around like this tag does. Dealing with prods (or AFD) can certainly be stressful, but at least it tends to go away. There's a sense of completion there, one way or another. How do you properly deal with someone coming along and tagging an article with {{notability}}, though? There's not really any place to discuss the tag (well, the article's talk page is, but... there's a reason that AFD discussions take place in a centralized location rather then on talk pages), and there's certainly no clear instructions on how to deal with it (and I'd suggest that there really isn't any clear instructions which could be given for it).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "...at least it tends to go away." So does the contributor. Sometimes that is a good thing, but sometimes it is a loss. Initiating deletion procedures is expeditious, but it is an extremely harsh way to prompt for improvement.

    It is not good when an article is tagged and ignored, but the template is not always used unconstructively. I always watchlist articles I tag, and eventually follow up even if they receive no subsequent edits. Most were ultimately improved or deleted, and the handful that remain will not remain forever. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You could say "so does the contributor" in response to adding this template as well, though. That's actually part of the reason that I'd like to see it go away. I don't see how the use of this tempalte couldn't be better served by either using a more specific maintenance template or by starting a discussion on the article's talk page (or hashing the issue out though prod/afd, as much as many of us dislike that route [myself included]).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are articles that immediately fail notability (PROD and AFD), and articles that presently don't show notability (but is verified) but that an editor may believe can be improved with a bit of work. This is specifically important considering that notability is not a black or white measure and not a simple concept to understand. Granted, if a notability-tagged article floats around for a year or so, then by all means PROD/AFD makes sense to remove it; but this is true of nearly all the maintance tags. As for it being a talk page thing, I disagree: just like we tag for the need for more third-party sources for verification (which otherwise says "delete" if they don't exist), tagging for notability may bring a new editor around to offer the appropriate sources, possibly on the good chance they specifically sought out that article. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, that's the basic thinking. The problem is that this boilerplate response fails to answer the actual criticism. What's the criteria to remove the tag? Does the article have to wear it's "not notable" badge until it's a GA? What is this template supposed to accomplish, exactly?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The measure is the introduction of secondary sources to support the claim by the author that the topic is notable, just at the template text says: Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic.. That doesn't mean that it is suddenly as any article can be challenges for notability at AFD, but by having secondary sources and thus able to remove the tag, editors will less likely send the article to AFD to allow it to grow. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's a good answer (honestly, I don't see an answer there at all...), but seeing as how I'm apparently alone here I'll withdraw. No big deal.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Masem. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... it is very useful in situations where we assume notability, but where we don't know enough to properly establish notability. It is all fine and dandy to say "fix it yourself" when you come across a problematic article... but that assumes you can fix it yourself... You may not feel qualified to do so. That's where tags and templates are helpful. For example, I know nothing about particle physics... so if I come across a problematic article that relates to particle physics, I don't know enough to fix it. I could try to fix it... by doing a google search... but does that search give me quality sources or complete garbage? I have no idea. So, instead of guessing, I think it is better to tag the article with the template... to alert editors who are familiar with the topic area (and the relevant sources) that there is a problem with the article so that they can fix it. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template is useful with notability isn't certain, or when it is not well demonstrated, but an editor believes other editors might decide either way. Many times when I see it on an article I either add a source for notability or go for deletion. Many times when I'm not sure, I leave the tag myself. Not everything is black and white. --Muhandes (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: regarding criteria for adding and removing this tag. The criteria for adding this tag is that an editor thinks notability is not well demonstrated, but another editor might be able to establish it. The criteria for removing it is that an editor thinks notability is well established. Just like any other tag really. --Muhandes (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh As much as I dislike tag bombing and overtagging, I don't think deleting a template which is sometimes misused is the answer. Yes, people sometimes misuse them. Yes, sometimes people use them for disruption (or to try to prove a point). Yes, sometimes they are very distracting to readers (particularly if overused). On the other hand, cleanup templates can serve a purpose in helping editors improve articles (although I'm less inclined to think they help readers in any way because readers tend to ignore them now).

    This sort of thing keeps coming up again and again and I'm really beginning to think we need a larger discussion over cleanup templates in general. Issues such as helpfulness, intrusiveness, use, misuse, etc of cleanup templates really needs to be brought up in a larger venue for a community wide discussion. These individual TfDs aren't really helping to improve the system we have in place for cleanup templates and to educate editors how to avoid misusing some of these templates. As much as I also dislike instruction creep, I find myself wondering if we need some sort of guideline on using cleanup templates? --Tothwolf (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree with the other keep comments above (including what Tothwolf just said about this being such a recurrent issue). I can add that there's a seeming case that the subject-specific notability tags are better. That's partly true, but only for those pages that fall within their purview. There are plenty of situations where the subject-specific notability guidelines say that a subject that does not satisfy those guidelines must, instead, satisfy GNG, and this template is specifically useful for those cases. And I agree with others that there are plenty of cases where we assume or at least suspect notability, but where work will be needed to document it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course! People add that tag because the article does not demonstrate notability, but it might be able to be done. Otherwise they could use the various deletion methods. --The Σ talkcontribs 19:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep—occasionally I come across an article which I know is subject to specific notability criteria (especially sports personalities, sports in general being something about which I know far too little to make a decision!) and, rather than nominating a potentially decent article for deletion, tag it so that someone more competent than myself can assess things. There are other arguments I could bring up as to why this template should be kept, but since it looks like it will be anyway, I don't think I'll bother. (Incidentally, I'd have said that this was also a borderline case of Speedy keep 4 given that it's such a widely-used template with its roots clearly entrenched in an important policy.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 21:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Ridiculous. This template is to indicate that an article, in its current shape or form, does not establish the subject's notability. So someone who has access to databases and other potential sources can come along and either establish that notability or nominate it for deletion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template can quite easily be removed: Just see if the subject meets the notability guidelines. We do that all the time in AFDs, so the nominators argument is incorrect. Yoenit (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yeah, in the normal course of things, those people who tag problems instead of fixing them are annoying; who do they think has time to go around cleaning up after them? If notability's a problem then for goodness' sake don't tag, do something about it! But I can envisage situations where something less heavy-handed than a prod or an AfD nomination would be called for, and in those circumstances I might use a tag myself.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that the template is seldom removed is that most of the thousands of terrible little articles upon which it is placed receive next to no traffic. They'd be deleted if that were a low-drama route, but unfortunately it isn't. I'd far rather that {{importance}} had been kept back in the day and this one had been redirected there (as I believe the spirit of this template is "please show why this is important" rather than "doesn't this article suck?", but that ship has sailed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with many of the other reasons stated above. Take into consideration the input pipeline that we're getting at New Page Patrol. My procedure is: If it seems like it's a reasonable shot at staying a article I tag it with the appropriate maintenance templates to draw attention to it's perceived deficiencies. If it doesn't get improved I move up to a PROD. I'd rather keep subjects that appear to be interesting, but I also want to maintain a minimum level of quality at the Wiki. Hasteur (talk) 11:43, 20 June 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:Infobox historian[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. The parameters required by a "historian" infobox are very similar, if not identical, to the more general scientist template. The preservation of a redirect will allow for the name "historian" to be used while using the template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox historian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Exact copy of Template:Infobox scientist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Exact copy of" actually a problem? I'm not being flippant or dismissive here. Making an exact copy of something like {{Convert}} simply to change its name would obviously be problematic. However, even if the code is the same, I see an obvious reason to have both "Infobox historian" and "Infobox scientist", because calling an historian a scientist (or vice versa) isn't accurate.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should have sandboxed it first.. I did intend to have some other things. IMHO, I think infobox scientist should be renamed to infobox academic in order to clear up a lot of these issues. Either way, I won't be able to get back to it for a few days, so I won't be able to change it. However, you might want to note that it isn't an _exact_ copy since I have pulled out the code relating to zoologist, etc. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a good idea, because not all scientists are academics (e.g., Charles Darwin). I suspect that the same is true of historians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can solve the infobox's name somehow. Right now both infoboxes serve the same reason. since the name isn't visible to the reader is not a big deal but I think we can think of something. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even better then. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several points
  1. There is obvious room for potential template divergence, like info of time periods focused on, or decoration such as icons, or categories. The current sameness is just the result of a code-fork.
  2. Finding biography templates should be easy to find one with an appropriate name.
  3. There is utility in using transclusion lists to find articles with infoboxes about historians if one is correcting or styling historian-specific information.
  4. reminder: Editors should not be considering disk space restrictions in deletion discussions

i kan reed (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttals:
  1. Unless there's reason to believe that diverence would be significant (i.e. that lots of new fields would be appropriate, and that few of the current ones will fit) then merging any (still hypothetical, remember) fields to {{infobox scientist}} is the lowest-cost solution.
  2. A post-deletion redirect fixes that.
  3. That's what category:historians is for. Historians are more likely (guaranteed, in fact) to be categorised as such than to have infoboxes.
  4. I don't see anyone predicating their comments on disk space.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace with template:infobox person or template:infobox scientist, and then redirect. we should be striving for fewer template forks, rather than more. having a redirect will make it easy to find, and reduce the chance of it being forked again. it's not a question of "disk space", but a question of maintaining, synchronising, and learning the syntax of the various forks. everytime a new one is added, that's just more to learn. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Consistent with divergence of other fields at Biography Infoboxes for Arts and Entertainment, Science and Academia, Sports and Games. Also see Category:People infobox templates. SBaker43 (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And inconsistent with the convergence of all the verious scientist infoboxes. History is a social science. Historians do the same things (research, write papers, get tenure) as other scientists, and a fork here would be pointless duplication of effort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Historians, Philosophers and Scientists do very different kinds of work. Historians generally use the Historical method which depends heavily on the use primary sources to extract a better understanding of past events. Scientists depend on the Scientific method to investigate how things function in a measurable and empirical fashion typically using experimentation to validate or falsify hypotheses or theories. Philosophers are concerned with reasoning about questions of existence, structure of knowledge, and establishing values.
        Tenure is an academic institution employment issue unrelated to the practice of science, history, or philosophy.
        Writing papers may be a primary objective of philosophy and history, but it is clearly not the primary objective of the scientific method.
        Is there clear direction from WP:MOS or WP:GUIDELINE to limit or converge "scientist" infoboxes?
        SBaker43 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If historians are not scientists is irrelevant from the fact that the Infobox scientist serves its purpose as infobox for historians. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So to me we have two solution either we delete (only 1 translcusion so far) or we leave as a redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 26 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_18&oldid=1079337425"