Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 November 2)
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2

edit

Template:Notable Wikipedian

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. —freak(talk) 05:23, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

Template:Notable Wikipedian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is needless self-reference. It was nominated for deletion about a year ago, but times have surely changed. It really has no place in the articles of people with Wikipedia usernames, and it's quite possibly an invasion of privacy anyway as they may or may not want to openly disclose this. Also, there are enough issues already verifying that someone is or is not the person who is mentioned, so many questions concerning whether this template is true or not may lie, which could possibly lead to WP:LIVING concerns (people impersonating those with Wikipedia articles). Cowman109Talk 22:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The problems with verifying an individual's identity (which I thought had to be done through Wikimedia) aside, I don't see what the problem is. To quote WP:SELF: "...self-references are entirely acceptable on talk pages..." As this template never appears outside of talk pages, any self-reference is a non-issue. EVula 22:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for monitoring WP:AUTO implications. WP:LIVING wouldn't apply to this template since there are already WP:USERNAME policies on this. Handling defamation is what WP:OFFICE is for. Tuxide 22:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How easy is it to adequately verify that a person claiming to be the subject of an article really is that person? Is this actually being done? If not, WP:LIVING is being contravened, because with this template we are stating that the subject of an article has made comments on the talk page. Alan Pascoe 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verification can be done by asking the subject of the article himself (outside of Wikipedia of course) like User:Romero, or by blocking him like User:Stephencolbert as per WP:USERNAME. This template should only exist on talk pages about confirmed notable users. Tuxide 22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no self-reference issue whatsoever, as this is a talk page template. I've actually found it very helpful, more than one (and to my surprise). I believe this would only be used on those who've revealed themselves to be who they are, and wouldn't be an issue of personal information exposure. If the person, as a Wikipedia editor, has chosen to not identify themselves on Wikipedia, then any posting of such personal information (who they are, where they live) is not tolerated. Thus, it shouldn't even be an issue for this template in the first place. -- Ned Scott 01:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I originally misread the template and did not realize it was just for talk pages now. Responding to the above keep vote, however, I would suggest that if this is kept, we look through where this template is transcluded, as there are about 1000 of these lying about, many of which at a glance give no support that the user mentioned is indeed the same editor who is the subject of the article. Cowman109Talk 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As mentioned, since it's for talk pages, WP:SELF isn't an issue. If there is an issue at all, it would be along the lines of userboxes in template space — that it might give the impression that wikipedia endorses/encourages prominently hilighting editors who have an article. --Interiot 07:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BLP encourages us to be especially respectful when the subject of an article wants to remove negative content from it. If we know that the subject edits Wikipedia, then knowing which user they are is helpful to abiding by policy. An example I recently put up is at Talk:John Alan Glennon, the statement I relied upon was in the second AFD nomination. Was that enough evidence? Shrug. GRBerry 16:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a notable Wikipedian myself, I think that this template is useful. However, I do agree that there are some thorny verification issues. For example, since I'm a public speaker, suppose I meet an actress in a speaker lounge at a TV studio somewhere. We get to talking about one of my favorite subjects, Wikipedia, and she tells me that she edits Wikipedia too, and tells me her username. Later, I check her official bio, and see that (1) the Notable Wikipedian template isn't on the talkpage; (2) That she hasn't formally identified herself on her userpage either; and (3) that she's been making autobiographical edits to her bio. Do I then have a responsibility to add this template to the bio page, even though I have no verification? Since this situation has actually occurred multiple times, what I've usually been doing, has been contacting the individual offline and telling them to knock it off, and I've also been adding their bio to my watchlist so that I can keep an eye on it for self-promotional edits, and remove as necessary. Sometimes I also drop a note on their user talkpage, and pointedly refer them to WP:AUTO. But guidance on what I should do with that "off-wiki" knowledge, especially as regards this template, would be helpful. --Elonka 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are 569 articles which have this template on their talk pages. I doubt that there has been proper verification in more than a few of these. The problem is not that users discuss with a user who claims to be the subject of an article. The problem is with this template which states that the user is the subject of the article, and, by implication, that all comments made by the user are from the subject. Without proper verification of the user's identity, this is a clear violation of WP:LIVING, which applies to talk pages as well as article pages. Alan Pascoe 22:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't fail WP:SELF and the issues with BLP aren't a flaw in the template but in editorial practise. Hiding Talk 23:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal What if we modify the template to include a field for a Wikimedia representative to say "yes, I've verified this"; it would include their username ("Identity has been verified by User:so-and-so") and a diff of the user's adding of the tag, so that we don't end up with tables citing false verification. A bit of a pain to implement? You bet. Would it clear up any violations of BLP? Yes. EVula 23:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that is a good idea. Whatever happens, there needs to be some process of formal verification of identity Alan Pascoe 23:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there currently such a place in the Wikipedia namespace for verification? I tried looking for one earlier and I couldn't find it, the closest being WP:RFC/NAME. Tuxide
  • Keep -- very useful template. - Longhair\talk 22:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Most definately keep - my example is Peter Hitchens where so much has been written about the Hitchens brothers it has been useful to have the encyclopedic knowledge of the subject to sort it out and to know that that has happened, especially with journalists writing about other journalists private lives. The subject can point us to articles where information is based on a direct quote, such as interview, or clarify it as just hearsay. It is useful to know that procedure has happened and with PH especially, there is discussion that has transferred from the main article to his user talk page. The template not only provides the links clearly as a header but also the contributions so that others can see original comments and thus get a true flavour of the character concerned. I think this template is useful, nay essential in providing information and clarity and should be kept. Miamomimi 10:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It may be correct that there are cases where it's hard to verify whether a given wikipedian is indeed the subject of a given article, but that doesn't mean it's hard in all cases. Examples could be people who have become notable because of being a wikipedian, or people who were wikipedian before becoming notable. As a last resort, it's obviously always possible to just send people an email and ask them whether they indeed have done edits on wikipedia as a given user. Yoe 16:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this (a proposal similar to EVula's) My proposal is that this template is split into two different templates. One says the following, "It has been suggested by User:Lorem Ipsum that the Wikipedia account User:Example is the subject of this article." The second one says "It has been verified that the Wikipedia account User:Example is the subject of this article. See [[Insert verification here]] or [here]." If it is verified that the account is not that of the subject, then the template is removed and a <!--hidden comment--> is left behind. This way, we could both respect WP:BLP concerns and provide a notice to identify editing that is in violation of WP:AUTO. Is this a good compromise? Picaroon9288 20:18, 5 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:MascotGuy

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete (Radiant) 23:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MascotGuy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is redundant with {{blockedsockpuppet|MascotGuy}}. It was orphaned and deprecated, but restored by SunStar Net. —[admin] Pathoschild 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nom listed here for convenience:

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 page.

Template:Municipalities in Salamanca

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. (Radiant) 23:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Municipalities in Salamanca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ridiculously long template. At the very least it should be defaulted to hide the contents. Fang Aili talk 21:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (i.e., Delete). There's no reason for such a huge template because only bits and pieces of it would ever by useful to anybody, most of them are only minor villages and many of them are redlinks--not even important enough for anybody to have created a stub for them, and the additional problem it causes is that it makes the "What links here" for every one of its entries virtually useless, because that includes all the hundreds of other articles with this ridiculous template so any other article which really has anything to say about the one you are interested will never be found. It also makes lists of redlinks with many links useless, because all there really is which has that redlink is this template, but something like "What links here" for El Tejado has about 200 articles supposedly linking to it (one more now than before). Gene Nygaard 21:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC) clarified that I mean "delete" 01:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just throw it out, and put a link to the already existing List of municipalities in Salamanca, where the redlinks are fine (something you don't get in the categories), in the "See also" section of the articles. That is a quite sufficient navigation aid for the purposes addressed with this garish template. Gene Nygaard 21:34, 2 November 2006 (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 page.

Multiple Rugby Team Infoboxes

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 page.

The result of the debate was

Template:Rugby Team infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Super 14 team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:National rugby team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Invitational rugby team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete These have been superceded by the much improved {{Rugby team}}. These templates are now also unused. Bob 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed --Monk of the highest order 00:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. None of these are needed now. Cheers. Cvene64 03:31, 3 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Stubclass

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. (Radiant) 23:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stubclass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is necessary and just wastes screen space on the talk page. If someone placed a stub notice on the article, then someone already marked it as a stub. We don't have a stub tag approval process, so there's no need for this template. Perhaps if people want some kind of notice that the article quality was rated by a bot, add the auto parameter into the original template. —Mets501 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Err, by far the overwhelming majority of the template's uses are generated by the auto parameters of various templates. It's very rare to see this added to a page directly. Kirill Lokshin 03:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep very useful... used by at least one project (which qualifies it as keep. Are you, possibly, unsure of how it is used? Cbrown1023 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea is that it intentionally wastes screen space to make you think I'd better assess this page! Smart huh? :) If an editor sees that big ugly template all they ghave to do is quickly scan the article, remove the template if the article is a Stub, or up the grading to Start or better if it's improved. Transcluding it into the project's templates - which most projects have done - wouldn't actually solve that issue anyway, it would just transfer it to other templates. Thus, Keep. --kingboyk 10:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Stubclass}} and the various subtypes of {{Stub}} serve different functions. it would have been brilliant if the people responsible for {{Stubclass}} had called it something different (or at least discussed what they were planning to do with the Stub-sorting project first), since it causes no end of headaches at WP:WSS, but it is far from being the same thing, and as such should be kept. Grutness...wha? 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, as article assessment takes place on the talk page, {{stub}} can't be used for such functions.
This template is apart of a system to help quickly and efficiently rate articles based on what work needs to be done to them. Taking up space on the talk page is not a good reason to delete a template, especially an actively used one such as this.
Note: "If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place." I don't think, technically speaking, there is a guideline in use, but the idea behind that statement is that you shouldn't just nominate a template that is being used by an active and highly used process. By just deleting the template we'd leave a lot of lose wires, so to speak.
This is a short term use template that is prompting editors for an action that is needed (confirm or deny). How is that different than, say, a to do list entry? As soon as you see one of these templates you can remove it and easily "confirm or deny". There is no issue here, no real negative side effect. -- Ned Scott 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep . Goes without saying that this template is of temporary use and will thus be seen around less and less as the auto stubbing will decrease and the manned assessing will increase. Lincher 04:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Much better to have a warning that the assessment was done by a bot. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. The practice was taking place before I made this template (I since discovered) but at least now it's fully transparent, and editors are invited to check and confirm what the bot has done (with an invite they can't miss!). I created this as quite a radical experiment but it was some time ago now and that it hasn't come to TFD until now - and seems to be doing well here - is I think an indication that the idea has worked and been accepted. --kingboyk 20:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per obvious reasons said above SOADLuver 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - as per above. Badbilltucker 18:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've come across this a few times, and I just remove the auto=yes parameter to indicate that I agree with the auto-assesment (which it says on the template). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is for bot-use. Human-intervention is needed to remove it and confirm the article is indeed a stub. -- Ganeshk (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It takes up space to no end. As others have said, human editors add stub templates to articles, thus an automated rating of stub-class is nearly always valid. If not, we don't need an extra template to see it. If an editor comes across a much longer or better article that's been labeled as a stub, they'll change it. LordAmeth 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the flaw that it occasionally addresses an article that is not a stub, it still remains useful.Xeinart 03:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. This wastes space and is useless. KazakhPol 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dagnabit 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this template is a lot like those that are used for namespace tests. I'm sure most of you know what I mean but if you don't, I'm talking about the templates that if you put them on an article instead of a template, they add the big exclamation point thing. (I know, such simple terms). Cbrown1023 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, quite useful. If space is a concern, can't it be adjusted to show/hide? riana_dzasta 03:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned about just how many times this is retranscluded indirectly. As KB mentions, this has been switch-coded into a number of very high-use wikiproject templates: my best guess at the total number of such uses is in the ballpark of 200,000 (it's a tad difficult to get an accurate measure). And that will, at current trends, only ever increase, whether or not "automatically stub-class-tagged" or not -- at best the number of "live" transclusions may (or may not) decrease). Given that the Wiki didn't crash every time this template's been edited, it may not be quite as "high risk" as that number might at first imply, but surely it would be prudent to recode these not to all be dependent on this template, so as to flood the job queue somewhat less often. (Like FoN, I'm not wild about the whole scheme of emplacing hundreds of thousands of six-point-plan assessment banners on otherwise innocent, and otherwise unused, talk pages under the mantra of "it's needed for WP1.0". In the overwhelming majority of these cases no actual human assessment has happened, and what is fundamentally required is for a human to determine candidacy or lack thereof for v1 -- but seemingly that ship has sailed, and if we don't much like it, we can lump it.) Alai 07:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all the other talk-page-templatecruft "assessing" the importance and quality of articles. I'm not sure how this trend got started, but it needs to stop. —Angr 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Besides, too many toys already to play with instead of writing articles. If those who place them left and rigt spent time on article's improvement by writing content, there would have been many more FA's. --Irpen 11:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please actually read a little bit about what's going on first. This template is specifically used by bots as a temp message when they auto-classify an article as a stub. No human editors should be adding this template "left and right". I think some of the delete supporters might be confused about the concept and importance of article selection for Wikipedia 1.0. Assessing articles not only helps the 1.0 effort, but also helps WikiProjects identify which articles might need more attention. Isn't that directly related to improving and contributing to articles? -- Ned Scott 11:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it smaller please, these talk headers are very crowded. —Centrx→talk • 19:16, 11 November 2006 (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 page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2&oldid=1142563921"