Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 5

December 5

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 Userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Also co-nominating all subpages.)

Orphaned. Seems to have been proposed in May, but has not changed since. The idea of "out-of-body references" does not have general support from the community. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The template is essential for the demonstration page, and the proposal is not dead. The proposed mechanism (or any variation thereof) would actually make editing easier and more pleasant for most users. Unfortunately the idea is hard to explain without a working prototype, and that requires a lot of programming by Wikipedia's team (my hacked-up demo is not good enough for that purpose). This seems to be the main reason why it hasn't gone forward.
    (By the way, this case shows a big defect of the current archiving policy. Any proposal that takes longer than a few months to implement will be archived, independently of its merit; ad then no one will ever look at it again...)
    (The statistics on wikipedia growth strongly indiate that the number and/or productivity of Wikipedia edtors was growing exponentially until late 2005; but then something happened, and since early 2006 it has been declining exponentially. I would bet that the fateful event was the policy of requiring references in all articles. While references are a good thing, the present <ref> mechanish is a disaster, since the insertion of bibliography entries in mid-paragraph or mid-sentence makes the source text almost impossible to read. Old editors now find editing much less fun, and potential new editors probably give up when they click "edit" and see only a jumble of inscrutable infoboxes, navboxes, wikitables, editorial templates, and <ref> entries. If the present growth trend continues, in another decade Wikipedia will stop growing while still in its present state: with millions of important articles that are still missing or sorely inadequate. If we really want "Wikipedia forever", we must find a way to clean up the source text from all those messy devices; in particular, to move the <ref> entries out of the article text. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
PS. I should add also that the template is quite harmless (being in template space, it will not normally be seen by readers), that writing it was quite a bit of work (not just mine), that it will become necessary if/when the proposal gets discussed again, and that its purpose cannot be achieved in any other way (unlike a deleted article, that will "work" even if moved to a User subpage or to an external site). --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: ARGH! The insertion of the deletion notice in the "@@" template BROKE the template, so the demo page above does not work any more. PLEASE, when inserting the delete notice in a template, be careful to do so only in the <noinclude> section. I am fixing it. Thanks... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly that the current referencing system is messy, and scary for newbies. However, templates are probably not the way to fix it. Using an arbitrary number to identify each reference, and then having to view/edit a separate page to access the reference, is likely to confuse people even more. With the Wikipedia Usability Initiative now well underway, I expect that we will see an improved referencing frontend over the next year. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news! But then please let's wait until then. If the problem is solved, then the "@@" template and my demo will become irrelevant, and I will not object to them being deleted. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I looked at the WP Usability link and their English WP prototype, but could not see anything relevant to reference markup. Where should I look, exactly? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't actually seem to be anything specific (the Usability Wiki is very disorganised), but given this and this, I think they'll be doing something. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Delldot (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify. Until the proposal is approved, it's inactive and the templates aren't necessary. As a principle matter, I don't think people should be using the regular template space for tests (like we wouldn't allow its usage for test articles). Disputes over the actual system don't belong at TfD at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, and don't move back to "Template:" namespace unless and until there's a good reason to do so, and it is properly documented. I've been at this stuff for a long time (2005+), and found the page to be gibberish, so I shudder to think what our less template-geeky users are going to make of it. Userfication won't really affect the proposals and tests - just replace {{@@}} with {{User:Jorge Stolfi/@@@@}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:42, 9 December 2009 (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.
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 a near-unanimous Keep. If particular articles linked in the template are in violation of WP:NPOV or other policies, they should be edited or removed, but as long as neutrally-written articles on controversies exist, there is nothing wrong with having a navigation box to link them. Non-admin closure. RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Muslims and controversies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Comment Neutral point of view is a reason to edit material, not to delete it. Please provide a less terse nomination text. Andjam (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is Islamophobic; it is nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of negative subjects related to Muslims. It has clearly been created for propaganda purposes. The template is also primary research, and violates neutral point of view in its very subject. We don't want to give a greenlight for a "Judaism and Jews controversies" template.. Izzedine 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we have such a template. It's at {{Antisemitism}}. The fact that Wikipedia covers Antisemitism doesn't make Wikipedia antisemitic. Give us a break. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 7 December 2009 (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.
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 speedy delete under criterion G7 (creator requests deletion). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP Chicago-user (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant and inferior to {{User WPChicago}}. Nominator = Creator. Rrius (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2009 (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.