Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 27

< January 26	January 28 >

January 27

UK census ethnic groups

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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Black British (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:British Asian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Other-UK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:White British (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These represent problematic attempts to map country of origin on to the ethnic group categories in the UK census. Since people can select whichever group they want, there is no stable relationship between country of birth and ethnic group in the census. For example, Americans may fall into pretty much any of the categories. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm not too happy about these templates, but they do seem preferable to the British ethnic group one they replaced. There are still problems though - e.g. should British Kurds and Lebanese British be in the 'White British' template? Perhaps these templates could be improved, but I can't help but think they raise more problems than they solve. Terraxos (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any definitive way of classifying country of origin by ethnicity, which is what these templates rely on. It's enitrely up to the person filling in the census to classify themselves. Futhermore, since most (all) countries have ethnic minorities, to say suggest that all people born in one country (say, France) living in the UK are of one ethnicity (say, white) is misleading. Templates such as Template:EuropeansinUK seem to cover this better because they don't make assumptions about ethnicity. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although American should be removed from the template. It should focus purely on ethnic categories. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "focus purely on ethnic categories"? The point is that the templates list countries of birth, not ethnic groups. The problem is not just with America, it's with all of the countries of birth. There are two problems with the template. Firstly, the UK census form is completed by the respondent and they can chose to categorise themselves into whichever ethnicity grouping they choose, regardless of country of birth or nationality. Secondly, all country-of-birth groups are likely to include people of different ethnicities. For these two reasons, we can't presume that there is a relationship between ethnicity as defined in the census and country of birth. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A number of points could be made regarding ethnicity and nationality in this context, some of which are noted above, however I'd like to comment on one template in particular, i.e. 'White British'. This includes 'Northern Irish', 'Scottish' and 'Welsh'. A considerable percentage of people who would call themselves 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' refuse to accept 'British' to describe their nationality or 'White British' for ethnicity. There was a lot of controversy in Wales. Many people refused to tick the 'White British' box on the census form in protest as the UK government had refused a popular campaign for a 'Welsh' box and some went so far as to boycott the census completely. The problems of including 'Northern Irish people' as 'White British' should be obvious. If the English-language edition of Wikipedia is happy to insult large numbers of its UK readers go ahead and keep it: if not, the easiest solution is to delete it. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:57, 2 February 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.

Template:Demote

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 to {{Disputedtag}}. Happy‑melon 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is intended to indicate that discussion is underway to "demote" a policy or guideline.

Firstly, we don't maintain a hierarchy under which pages are promoted or "demoted." Our policies and guidelines are descriptive (not prescriptive), so a page either accurately describes how we do things or it doesn't. We rely on consensus to make such determinations (and tag pages appropriately), but a page doesn't suddenly rise or fall to a different level as a result.

Secondly, essays can be every bit as valid and useful as policies and guidelines are, so suggesting that a page be "demoted" to one is a misnomer in that respect as well.

Thirdly, all of this should be moot, as we already have a longstanding template (Template:Disputedtag) for use when a "page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion." However, when I pointed this out to Template:Demote's creator, he/she removed the "or under discussion" wording from that template.

As I attempted to do earlier, I seek to redirect Template:Demote to Template:Disputedtag (the previous wording of which should be restored). —David Levy 13:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Template talk:Demote. Suggest that the proposer withdraw this proposal and take the matter up at WP:Policies and guidelines, where use of this template is currently enshrined in agreed policy. (The "policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive" maxim is, of course, an over-simplification.) ~~Speedy keep~~ [see below], if we're doing voting (TfD isn't a forum to change policy).--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kotniski's belief that "use of this template is currently enshrined in agreed policy" illustrates his misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. He evidently doesn't realize that the documentation in question is merely intended to describe how the templates are used, not to prescribe how they should be used. Template:Disputedtag has long been used in the manner suggested by its previous wording, while Template:Demote has barely (if ever) been used for anything. If a template's documentation doesn't jibe with the actual template, it's the documentation (not the template) that's incorrect. —David Levy 15:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Kotniski modified the documentation in question (to recommend the use of Template:Demote instead of Template:Disputedtag) on the day of Template:Demote's creation (and now claims that this means that its use is "enshrined" in policy). —David Levy 15:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we agreed to the change of policy (and the changes to WP:POLICY were well publicized, even if they didn't draw a lot of active discussion), hence we agreed to change the way the templates were used, and I think I observed a certain amount of change in behaviour in this area (at least, as regards {{underdiscussion}} and {{disputedtag}} - the issue of demotion rarely comes up, so we wouldn't expect this template to be used often). This isn't the right forum for trying to change the policy back - I hope the discussion will continue soon at the policy page where more people can join in.--Kotniski (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Again, polices are descriptive, not prescriptive. Template:Disputedtag has long been used (and continues to be used) for the purpose that you claim is served by Template:Demote (which I've never seen used for any purpose), and you haven't even explained why this should change (let alone demonstrate that it has). Your modification of Template:Disputedtag's wording accomplished nothing other than making it no longer fully reflect how the template is used and forcing people to use your template instead.

2. No one is questioning the use/existence of Template:Underdiscussion, so there's no need to defend it. —David Levy 16:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In our other discussion (at the template talk page) you accepted that if policies change to reflect recent agreed changes in practice, then they still reflect practice (i.e. currently accepted rather than long-standing). I would suggest that this is what happened in this case. Since demotion proposals are a rare event, it is still far too early to say whether this agreed change has been accepted into actual practice or not. I hope it will be, since it makes a useful distinction between two cases (as described at the other talk).--Kotniski (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, your claim that "we agreed to the change of policy" is based on one person's statement that "your changes look good", with no commentary on any specific change.

Meanwhile, people have continued to use Template:Disputedtag in the manner that you claim your template should be used instead. So now you've unilaterally modified Template:Disputedtag's longstanding wording in a manner that reduces its usefulness, thereby forcing people to switch to your template.

As I've explained at Template talk:Demote, the distinction that you're attempting to draw is not a practical one in this context. —David Levy 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there - I believe it is. Can you give examples where people have continued to use disputedtag? --Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, it's difficult to identify pages on which a template formerly was transcluded. Had I known that this discussion was upcoming, I'd have noted where I encountered the tag.

However, I was able to find an instance in which Template:Demote was used (on and off for about a day) until an editor deemed it "excessive" and replaced it with Template:Disputedtag. —David Levy 11:07/11:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{disputedtag}} per nominator. We don't need two templates for the same purpose, and the older one seems preferable for multiple reasons. Terraxos (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you will see if you read my remarks at the template talk page, this doesn't serve the same purpose as disputedtag. In fact, I would prefer just to delete this than redirect it anywhere. The appropriate replacement would be {{underdiscussion}}, possibly with a new parameter (again, as explained at the talk page). --Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've explained on the template's talk page, this does serve the same purpose as Template:Disputedtag (albeit with inappropriate terminology that misleads people to believe that we "demote" policies and guidelines).

Template:Disputedtag's purpose is to inform users of an ongoing discussion regarding the possibility that the page on which it appears should not be designated a "policy" or "guideline." In this context, it simply doesn't matter whether the discussion stems from the assertion that a page was inappropriately tagged or the belief that it was appropriately tagged but no longer should be. Either way, the user is viewing a page that allegedly shouldn't carry its "policy" or "guideline" designation at the present time. Template:Disputedtag's wording applied to both scenarios until you altered it to reduce the template's usefulness. —David Levy 11:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the other page. It's the nature of the "allegedly" that makes the difference: allegedly because it's not working to the benefit of the project, or allegedly because it was marked as policy/gl without proper consensus. A lot of the problems that occur in Wikipedia decision-making would be resolved if people could get their heads round the fundamental distinction between discussions to reach consensus and discussions about what the consensus is. For practical reasons, the second can't be a special case of the first, or you would (and do) get an endless spiral of argument.--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this context (that of a user encountering the tag), if there is a possibility that the page shouldn't carry the designation of "policy" or "guideline," it doesn't matter why. Again, the pages in question merely document the community's practices (or not). They aren't acts of legislation that have been passed into law and formally enacted.

The specifics of why it's believed that a page shouldn't carry the designation of "policy" or "guideline" belong on the talk page. For the template itself, we need only inform users that a discussion is ongoing regarding the possibility that the page's designation should be changed. A user encountering the tag will either ignore the discussion (in which case the specifics are irrelevant) or read it (in which case he/she will gain a complete understanding, which cannot be conveyed by any template). —David Levy 12:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, the template doesn't tell the whole story, but better to tell part of it (if we can do so accurately and concisely) than none of it. There's a clear practical difference between "there's a dispute about whether this information reflects practice now" and "there's a discussion about whether it should reflect practice in the future". --Kotniski (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. How is it insufficient to simply convey that the "page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion"? The only practical difference between the "under discussion" wording (which you removed) and your template's wording is that the latter falsely claims that we maintain a hierarchy under which pages are "demoted." —David Levy 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to the 3RR example I gave earlier and you'll see the difference. If it's the "demote" wording that bothers you, then I'm quite happy to change that. Can't talk any more today, --Kotniski (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you aren't going to elaborate.

The "demote" wording certainly bothers me, as does the template's redundancy. —David Levy 14:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Disputedtag per David Levy. Misleading and redundant template. CapitalQ (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I"m not sure what your position is. The fact that you insist on including the "or under discussion" wording on {{disputedtag}} implies you think there is a difference between "disputed" and "under discussion" (otherwise there would be no need to mention two alternatives). So if there is a difference, why not keep the two templates to enable people to make the distinction? It is potentially quite a big difference - in the example I referred to earlier, if the status of 3RR were disputed, then people would have to look at the circumstances to decide whether to obey or disregard it. If it were under discussion then people would know they are still expected to abide by it. It wasn't me who introduced this idea of law-like policies and guidelines, but now we've got them and much behaviour on WP is influenced by them, we ought to try to make them function effectively and clearly.--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has asserted that there is no difference between "disputed" and "under discussion." The issue is that there is no practical distinction in the context for which these templates are used. Your argument to the contrary stems from your mistaken belief that we have a system of "law-like policies and guidelines" that can be enforced/disregarded in a lawyer-like manner.

Again, all that someone viewing the page needs to informed of is that there is an ongoing discussion in which it has been suggested that the page shouldn't be designated a "policy" or "guideline." It doesn't matter whether this is because the page no longer should be tagged as such or because it never should have been tagged as such; under neither circumstance should users be encouraged to "obey" or "disregard" the page's advice (as though our policies and guidelines are "law-like" and must be formally ratified/repealed to gain/lose relevance). I realize that you're attempting to convey what you regard as an important distinction, but you're really only propagating your misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —David Levy 13:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not my (mis)understanding, but the (mis)understanding of apparently most people who take part in dicussions about policies and guidelines. If you want to change people's attitudes (and I would probably support you), then you'll need to do so in a wider forum.--Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been taking part in discussions about Wikipedia policies and guidelines since 2005, and I've never observed the process to exist in the "law-like" form that you claim it does. On the contrary, the community frowns on the treatment of policies and guidelines as laws.

Frankly, someone relying on one of these tags to tell him/her whether to "obey" or "disregard" a page would be downright harmful. —David Levy 18:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following my recent bold change to WP:Policies and guidelines, Template:Underdiscussion and other documentation (see Template talk:Demote), I agree to delete this template provided those changes are not challenged by others at those pages.--Kotniski (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, all of the discussion's participants (other than you) have agreed that {{demote}} is a redundant fork of {{disputedtag}}. Do you honestly believe that an appropriate response is to instead fork its purpose to another template? —David Levy 13:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense. The other template already exists, and you said you had no problem with the distinction between disputedtag and underdiscussion. The fact that two other people passed by and agreed with you that demote was a fork doesn't imply that they gave any great thought to the matter of what it was a fork of (and they certainly didn't give any arguments as to why it was a fork of this rather than that).--Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. You just edited Template:Underdiscussion to insert the application for which you created Template:Demote (and that three of us have opined was inappropriately forked from Template:Disputedtag).

2. I have no problem with the distinction between "general discussion about a page" and "discussion regarding the possibility of removing a page's policy/guideline designation" (which is what existed before your aforementioned edit). As I've repeatedly stated, I do have a problem with the distinction between "discussion stemming from the belief that a page no longer should carry its policy/guideline designation" and "discussion stemming from the assertion that a page never should have carried its policy/guideline designation." You created Template:Demote specifically to draw this distinction, and we presently are debating whether such a separation should exist (and thus far, every participant other than you has opined that it shouldn't). Therefore, it strikes me as inappropriate at this juncture to shift Template:Demote's application to another template, thereby retaining the contested separation.

3. You previously cited one person's statement that "your changes look good" (with absolutely no elaboration) as evidence that "we agreed to the change of policy" (the one in which you claimed that your template's use was "enshrined"), and now you're dismissing the feedback received here because "the fact that two other people passed by and agreed with [me] that demote was a fork doesn't imply that they gave any great thought to the matter of what it was a fork of (and they certainly didn't give any arguments as to why it was a fork of this rather than that)." This, of course, ignores the fact that both individuals cited my arguments as the basis of their comments. Are you suggesting that I haven't supplied any such arguments? Need I point out that you created Template:Demote shortly after two attempts on your part to alter Template:Disputedtag were reverted (#1 / #2)? —David Levy 18:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're arguing now, or why you're still doing it here now I've agreed to delete the template. If you have a problem with the distinction described at WP:Policies and guidelines between disputedtag and underdiscussion, then simply go there and propose a change, and we'll see what other people think. Or better still, join in the more general discussion about how we deal with policy/guideline-related debates, which is an area where there really are matters of significance that need to be hammered out. If you have ideas about how to steer Wikipedia out of the hands of the wikilawyers (who unfortunately seem to me to be growing in power), then I'll certainly be an ally. Anyway, EOT from me at this page, hope to speak to you again elsewhere.--Kotniski (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what I'm arguing? I'm arguing that you just agreed to delete this template (though I've only proposed redirection) after shifting its forked application to a different template.

And now you want me to "propose a change" to the setup that you just unilaterally created? Wow.

Again, that page merely documents how the templates are used; it isn't a "law" that dictates how they're used. This is the correct forum in which to opine that a template is a redundant fork (and propose that it be deleted or redirected), and responding to that by shifting the forked function to a different template (and agreeing to delete the original fork, claiming that this renders the issue moot) is poor form. —David Levy 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. WP:POL was amended, a month or so ago, to include this tag; the idea was to distinguish between "I dispute this page has ever been consensus", to "Let's not do this anymore". The distinction seems reasonable, even though David Levy is quite right to object that calling it established policy is premature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an explanation of how it's beneficial to draw this distinction when tagging a policy/guideline page. Certainly, the reason behind a proposal to remove a page's policy/guideline designation is relevant to the talk page discussion, but what practical difference does it make to someone viewing the tag? (Note that this is a sincere request, not an attempted refutation.) —David Levy 05:54, 5 February 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.

Template:Uw-Lèse majesté4im

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 userfied by author (me) --barneca (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-Lèse majesté4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not useful Gurch (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made it, as a (failed) attempt at a joke; although someone else made minor formatting changes to it, so it's not strictly {{db-author}} material, I'll IAR and just userfy it, and go lick my wounds and mope that no one thinks I'm funny. ~~I'll leave closing the TFD to someone who knows the procedure~~. --barneca (talk) 16:03, 27 January 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.

Template:Michigan Wolverines men's ice hockey roster

O mai

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, as all templates could have also met CSD#T3 if tagged for seven days, but since there's obvious consensus here I've delete it as a snowball close. Maxim_(talk) 13:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michigan Wolverines men's ice hockey roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Abandoned and orphaned roster template. Redundant. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Djsasso (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as unuseful. Grsz ¹¹ 03:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this is more like the stuff you can delete on a whim. Jc121383 (talk) 04:19, 27 January 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.

NCAA ice hockey standings templates

O mai

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, as all templates could have also met CSD#T3 if tagged for seven days, but since there's obvious consensus here I've delete it as a snowball close. Maxim_(talk) 13:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007 Atlantic Hockey standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007 CCHA standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007 CHA standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007 ECAC Hockey standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007 Hockey East standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Abandoned standings templates that are also orphaned from last year's NCAA men's ice hockey season. Redundant templates. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can easily be added as a table on any page they are needed on, but since they are orphaned there is really no use for them. -Djsasso (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as unuseful. Grsz ¹¹ 03:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's 2009 now. Jc121383 (talk) 04:20, 27 January 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.