Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1

edit

Template:Chembox SystematicName

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chembox SystematicName (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Usage of the template requires original research and is causing many disputes as a result. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is difficult to carry out to the satisfaction of all users concerned, as there is no consensus over what methodology to facilitate. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Premature at best, given the use of this template (both its current form/use and its embodied idea) are under active discussion at WT:Chem (the wikiproject that coordinates the whole interrelated set of chembox templates). Forum-shopping or an end-run around developing consensus is highly inappropriate. DMacks (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, the use of this template have been discussed for some time now, without satisfactory progress. KISS no longer applies, as cutomization on a per article basis renders the current usage of this template overly complicated. I don't see how it is highly inappropriate, that is an agresive accusation. I suggested it at WT:Chem, and then completed all the steps to make the proposal official. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. After a more careful consideration of the pro's and con's of this proposal and after verification at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Chembox_SystematicName&limit=500,
I now realise that at least 300 pages (12 screens of 25 lines, if the counting is good) could be negatively affected (lost of the main nomenclature name in their chemboxes) by the suppression of this transcluded template. So, better to be prudent. It is always a risky idea to delete a highly used transcluded template. Once again, considerable time and work will be diverted/lost to correct the situation caused by such a change, just to accommodate the desiterata of one single user. It would be better to use this template simply with discernment as a function of circumstances and to refrain to apply systematic nomenclature rules when it is not appropriate or simply not needed. It is not because an entry in a chembox is deliberately left empty that it must be filled. There is no obligation to systematically fill all entries in chemboxes. See the discussions at WT:Chem. Sometimes, it is necessary to express a bad idea to clearly demonstrate that it is just not applicable. This is the case here. Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A key point for understanding the discussion: in my view, the use of systematic names is not a problem for organic chemistry where it is most often the norm. It is mainly for simple inorganic molecules that, if applied without discernment, or with an insufficient understanding of the rules, it can generate esoteric names never used and also erroneous names which hurts the sensitivity of most chemists working in the lab or in the field (geochemistry). And this can be very misleading for the novices and the experienced users. There is a non-negligible risk that incorrect (or non-existing) names of inorganic compounds receive legitimacy from WP and publicity from Google search. We must not forget that WP is a powerful amplification system for the best and for the worse. The aim here is only to avoid the worse. Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is further evidence in support of deletion - it shows the complexity involved in determining when and how this template should be used. There is no existing decission making tree for this template rather, each instance must be decided by debate, a time consuming process. In any case, this template violates Wikipedia Policy WP:OR. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to keep on topic and not talk about me. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take this comment as a vote either way (I'll add this below), but to answer the question about IUPAC nomenclature constituting as original research - there is no list of IUPAC 'approved' names which can be referenced. The names must be constructed according to a set of rules, this is not always possible in an unambigous manner. If a contributor is constructing the name themselves then one may consider this to be original research. -- The chemistds (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is at the moment no suggested replacement for this template. The suggested approach could best be described as 'throwing the baby out with the bath water'. I would suggest that this proposal is based an a faulty assumption that a 'one-size' fits all approach can be taken to this problem. Any naming of compounds will inevitably result in some disputes. The naming of compounds requires a nuanced, sensible approach where each compound (and name) is assessed individually and the best approach determined accordingly. It might not be an ideal approach for Wikipedia but it is the the only way to preserve useful information, and avoid the addition of 'technically correct' systematic names that are in practice practically worthless. -- The chemistds (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

”

I agree, with the former paragraph's point. The nature of systematic naming means that no matter the source, whether it be a primary, or secondary source ultimately, the same set of rules are used to construct a variety of names, no matter what the level familiarity. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - No proper replacement, and this has been discussed at WT:CHEM (?), they all have their use, some are maybe becoming obsolete, but deleting is not the way. And that the name is 'original research' is not a reason to delete, when following the IUPAC rules, then you get this name, there may be more correct, then either discuss which one to use, or list more, etc. Note that this is significantly different from IUPAC name (acetone vs. 2-propanone, etc.). Note, I will be repairing the template by moving the deletion template to the talkpage, per TFD rules. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certain users deny the very applicability of systematic naming to certain compounds, argueing that the systematic names are unfamiliar to a general audience, despite being technically correct and appealing to the template.

The IUPACName template already provides the most familiar name for the chembox, whereas the SystematicName template provides a technical name that is universally recognisable by someone familiar to IUPAC nomenclature (as it is designed for, otherwise this template would be redundant). By making an exeption to OR, using the arguement that the systematic name is not in common usage does not stand then, as it is irrelevant. The template should display the correct systematic name, where there are multiple naming strategies applicable as per the IUPAC books, all should be listed as to avoid nomenclature discrimination and or chauvanism. This strategy is employed within the IUPAC books themselves, where some compounds have both substitutive and additive constructed names presented.

There are many users who are biased toward one naming strategy over another in cases where both are applicable, and other who want no systematic name at all for circumstancial reasons I find hard to keep track of, including an apparent lack of understanding of IUPAC nomenclature. It seems that no one is working on a general solution that does not require the time and resource consuming discussion of every compound with alternative systematic names. The use of this template for these types of compound is useless at best, with so many conflicting opinions over its use. If the template is not to be deleted, it should be changed to accomodate concurent systematic names. Another useful alteration would be to add a hide parameter. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You miss the point. Acetone is the IUPACName, 2-propanone is a/the systematic name. Hence, they are NOT irrelevant. And there may not necessarily be a correct systematic name, for some compounds there may be rise to have more in different levels of correctness (e.g. 'dimethylketone', and also that has been explained before - this is NOT the preferred IUPAC name.).
  • Note, the template CAN hold more names, and it can be hidden (I think it is by default). But since you are not getting it - having a or the systematic name rendered in the page text is useful, as there will still be people who will look for '2-propanone' in Google, and will, if this template to be deleted, NOT be able to find this page. By proposing to delete the possibility of a (or the) systematic name you might be giving rise to a (or another, seen previous discussions with you, e.g. regarding templates) disservice to our readers. Thereby changing this !vote to a SPEEDY keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "...as it is irrelevant...", "it" refers to the arguement, not the names. In two previous two paragraphs, I am not talking about myself when I say users. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmic Physics .. 2-propanone is a systematic name, which should be in this place, whereas 'acetone' would be in IUPACName. So, there is, at least, one example of where both are used in a clear way. Having both in the text is useful for the readers, it is useful for making the page findable on the web. Same for many, many compounds. No lengthy discussions needed. And those are the ones you see filled properly.
Yes, and then there are those more difficult cases, which are generally pretty complicated names. For many Wikipedians/readers, methylenedioxymethamphetamine was already too difficult to use as the name of the compound, and I see that (RS)-1-(benzo[d][1,3]dioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine is going to be even more difficult. Some are easy, some need discussion, some will not even get one. But as there are a plethora of cases where it can be, unambiguously, assigned, the field has a use, and hence, this template has a use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:23, 6 January 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:Northern Exposure

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Exposure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All characters redirected to character sheet. This now links only two articles as a result. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the consensus for redirecting those character pages... This template was nominated for deletion right after the redirects were made, too. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 07:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right, I agree with Cymru.lass. TenPoundHammer failed to mention that this is why they are all redirects. It would be better form to mention that these were redirected by the nominator just moments before the nomination of this template. I would suggest waiting a week to see if anyone objects to the redirects, unless there is some prior thread which discussed redirecting. 134.253.26.4 (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- we may well end up reversing all of the redirects involved. This method of trying to delete all traces of character articles is notto be encouraged DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 4 January 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:Notetaking softwares

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notetaking softwares (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per WP:NAV external links should not be included in templates, and without them this will be very empty. There's already a category, no need for a navbox. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:51, 1 January 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 NBAretired

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with {{Infobox NBA Player}}. I think they have all fields the same. Magioladitis (talk) 17:16, 1 January 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:The Potbelleez singles

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Potbelleez singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Repetition. All this information is present in Template:The Potbelleez. Were this a long-surviving artist like Kylie Minogue with a string of releases, I would support unreservedly a separate template for it, but The Potbelleez have only really been around for a few years and only have a handful of releases to their name, not enough for a separate template. JB Adder | Talk 10:35, 1 January 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:2010–11 Southern Conference men's basketball standings

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010–11 Southern Conference men's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 09:28, 1 January 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:2010 America East men's basketball standings

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 - duplicate template. JPG-GR (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 America East men's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 09:25, 1 January 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:Sockblock

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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sockblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SockBlock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Sockblock with Template:SockBlock.
Duplication. Template:SockBlock has only 1 transclusion anyway. Should be substituted and then deleted. Sorry realised its a substituted template. The only difference is one has the word temporary and one has the word indefinitely. Perhaps a parameter could be added if its needed to switch between the two. If not merged, one should be renamed. Mhiji (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WT:SPI notified per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 29#Template:SockmasterProven. --Bsherr (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Almost as good would be merging and adding a parameter, but I marginally prefer two separate templates with distinct names (say "SockBlockTemp" and "SockBlockIndef" or something similar) because I find something like that easier to learn than learning how to use a parameter, though it's not a big deal. Also, it is not quite true that the only difference is in the words "temporary" vs "indefinitely", as there are also significant differences in the appearance, most noticeably in the colour. Again, that is not a big deal, but I do think it is slightly helpful for the difference to be immediate and eye-catching like that. The present situation, with a trivial difference in the names making a significant difference, is not good at all, but the one thing definitely not to be done is getting rid of one of them without replacing it with something that does the same job. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Let's agree they should be combined, and then figure out how to design a single template, using parameters, that accomodates all needs. Then we can create wrappers for specific uses to accomodate anyone uncomfortable with parameters. --Bsherr (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename the {{Sockblock}} template to something like Template:Sockblock banned, because the main difference is that the Sockblock template is for indefinitely blocked sockpuppets of blocked or banned sockmasters, while the SockBlock template is just for blocked sockpuppets, whether the blocks are temporary or indefinite, but the account(s) don't necessarily have to be sockpuppets of a blocked or banned sockmaster. HeyMid (contribs) 19:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, this is more interesting. To me, as someone who blocks socks fairly frequently, the biggest difference is that {{SockBlock}} does not apparently allow someone to specify the sock master, whereas {{sockblock}} presumes that the blocked sock is a sock of a blocked or banned user (who may or may not be named). This presumption makes scant sense to me, since if you know who the master is, then you should specify it when blocking; and if you don't know, how can you then tell if it's a banned user or not? Also, since socks (not sockmasters) are always indef-blocked, the time option in {{SockBlock}} is useless and can be removed. Support merge into something that (1) is always indef - there is simply no non-indef sock blocks; (2) allows a parameter specifying the sockmaster; (3) does not presume that the sockmaster is blocked or banned if it is not specified. I think the color difference is, well, quite immaterial, but if someone wants it we can create a wrapper template with the other color, I guess...

    Also, that "the policy page(s) believed to have been violated is/are" part is entirely useless. It is obviously WP:SOCK. A search reveals that it's only been used a handful of times, with WP:BLOCK as the reason supplied. T. Canens (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have set up another example at User:Heymid/sockblock. The testcases are at the talk page of that page. If the blocked user is only a suspected sock puppet, the "not allowed to edit Wikipedia" sentence is added. There is no reason to have that sentence if it is a confirmed sock puppet of a banned or blocked user, because if that is the case, you should use the {{Sockblock}} template instead. Also, I don't think that sock puppets should be able to appeal their blocks, which is why I have added "If you are not a sock puppet" in the beginning of the appeal sentence. HeyMid (contribs) 14:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the above. Also, I have now managed to merge both templates at User:Heymid/sockblock merged. It works for both indefinitely blocked socks of blocked/banned sockmasters, and socks of sockmasters not blocked. Like the {{Sockblock}} template, it uses the {{Tmbox}} template. See the talk page of that page for testcases. However, should the templates be merged into a new separate template, or should they be merged into {{SockBlock}} or {{Sockblock}}? Also, it might be worth considering my merged template. HeyMid (contribs) 18:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HeyMid (contribs) 13:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum – with the ability to tag sockmasters, we can safely merge Template:SockmasterProven to here or otherwise outright delete it (as it may possibly be misleading, as shown in that corresponding [[TFD. –MuZemike 21:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are still confused, Template:SockmasterProven is intended for user talk pages; Template:Sockpuppetry is intended for tagging user pages. –MuZemike 23:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I know that. I think you meant you're suggesting that {{SockmasterProven}} also should be merged into {{SockBlock}}, as it otherwise may cause confusion. HeyMid (contribs) 23:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to have both templates around, unless you want to make {{SockmasterProven}} a version of the merged {{sockblock}}, but that's if we adopt your version; that is, your proposed version would have the same functionality as the {{SockmasterProven}} template. –MuZemike 23:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree...blocked as a sock puppet and blocked for operating a sock puppet are two different things - the first is always indef, the second is not. T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would be hard to merge two different templates that serve a different purpose. We can either try to merge the {{SockmasterProven}} template too, or write something like "Depending on which purpose this account has been used for, your main account may also be blocked." HeyMid (contribs) 08:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have now managed to also merge the {{SockmasterProven}} template into my User:Heymid/sockblock merged. However, it's now +2,000 bytes larger than the fifth latest revision of the {{SockBlock}} template, and it's hard for any newcomers to edit it, given the amount of if, ifeq, switch tags, etc needed. Also, if the message is a block of a sockmaster for sock puppetry, the {{{evidence}}} parameter has to be specified, but if some users/CUs don't want to specify evidence, I can fix that. HeyMid (contribs) 23:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HeyMid (contribs) 09:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about if you do a template-within a template sort of thing? I can't exactly understand the code (it's late at night and the code's long) so I'm not sure if that'd work in this case... If it would, though, that would make the code easier to muddle through/edit. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 07:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But then, look at {{Uw-block}}. It's essentially as much safesubstitutes and if/ifeq/switch tags as my example. I think leaving them merged is the best idea, since it removes any confusion with the template names. HeyMid (contribs) 11:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At a quick glance, the two templates look the same to me. If there is a difference in what they are used for (someone above suggested that one is for sockpuppets of indefinitely banned puppetmasters, and the other is not), then per the principle of least astonishment, that difference should be reflected in something other than the way the template's name is capitalized. That's about the most opaque way possible to do it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear things up:
  • {{Sockblock}} is for sock puppets of blocked or banned sockmasters only.
  • {{SockBlock}} is for sock puppets of blocked or banned users, and also for sock puppets of non-blocked sockmasters, and for notifying sockmasters who have been blocked for sock puppetry. Basically, it's an improved and more developed version of {{Sockblock}}. HeyMid (contribs) 13:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To make it simpler, {{Sockblock}} is no longer needed, so it should be redirected to {{SockBlock}}. HeyMid (contribs) 19:03, 8 January 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 Roman Catholic diocese

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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Roman Catholic diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Roman Catholic diocese with Template:Infobox diocese.
Almost all of the parameters are the same, so I don't see why these two couldn't be easily merged. Note that {{Infobox Catholic diocese}} is already a redirect to {{Infobox diocese}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Many of the fields in Infobox Diocese refer specifically to Catholics or only apply to Catholics such as "Number of Catholics in the diocese". If it is to be multi-denominational, the template needs more than a quick fix of adding an additional field for this, I think. I am not opposed to having a single infobox, but this infobox does not yet do the job properly. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since {{Infobox diocese}} has become a multi-denominational diocese template, the easiest thing to do is delete the three parameters "population_as_of", "catholics" and "catholics_percent", leaving the "population" parameter. Another option would be to add parameters for the number of anglicans/episcopalians and what percent they are. The question is, whether catholic, anglican or episcopalian, what are they the total population and percent of? I'm sure that some dioceses have the same boundaries to civil local authorities, but many other don't. I feel the best thing is to have the single "population" parameter stating the number of whatever denomination there are in the diocese. Scrivener-uki (talk) 12:07, 8 January 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:Sljfaq

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) 06:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created by SPA with promo username, who transcluded it into several articles, apparently to get traffic for his site. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No brainer, this one. If he wants to put this in as a legitimate reference, he should manually type it in (although I highly doubt its use in any article). JB Adder | Talk 10:57, 1 January 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:11thInfantryRegiment

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. JPG-GR (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:11thInfantryRegiment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:02, 1 January 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:Cite style and sources

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) 03:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite style and sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan and delete as redundant to Template:Cleanup-link rot, which contains the same message and is placed on the subjectpage, conforming to consensus that cleanup templates should be there instead of on the talk page. Bsherr (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:55, 1 January 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:Chinesetextbanner

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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Redundant to Template:Contains Chinese text Mhiji (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:50, 1 January 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:Chicagoland Riots

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicagoland Riots (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Illinois riots Mhiji (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:48, 1 January 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:Chuquisaca departmental election, 2005

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) 02:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chuquisaca departmental election, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't placed it on a given page because I was awaiting comment here on how to handle the 2005 elections (one page, two pages, or several). Will place it boldly in the next 10 days.--Carwil (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:48, 1 January 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:Criticism 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 no consensus to delete, but with a strong recommendation to make changes in the template's wording and documentation. After going through the arguments presented here, I found many reasonable suggestions for modification which will ameliorate the main (and valid) concern presented by the delete vote: Namely that criticism sections do not violate any policy per se, and that policy compliant material should not be tagged with anything. The equally valid argument for keeping is that this is simply a specific NPOV template, to point out a specific problem.

In the capacity of a regular editor, I am making a few changes myself based on what I have read here.

There is a general agreement that not all criticism sections should be tagged with the template, and I will add a line to the documentation to reflect that.

The current wording is: "This article's inclusion of a Criticism section may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in those sections into the article as a whole." The primary concern with the wording is that the problem cannot be resolved unless the criticism section is removed, and its contents distributed to other sections. I will change the wording to indicate that this particular criticism section is causing concern, mention the possibility of altering the section contents, and refer editors to the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Criticism section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template apparently intended to push the point of Wikipedia:Criticism, an essay. I'm no fan of criticism articles but this is not the right way to do it. Marcus Qwertyus 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion for deletion can be found [[1]]. -- llywrch (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it is often the case that information in "criticism sections" is better presented some other way, this template leads editors to believe that criticism sections are never appropriate. Frequently, grouping criticism together is the most logical and useful way to present that information to the reader. What often happens when someone inserts this template on an article is a careless scattering of criticism throughout the article that makes the article worse than it was before. We're better off letting editors decide the best way to present criticism on a case by case basis than allow this template to make pronouncements from above. Croctotheface (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it may push the POV of the essay mentioned in the delete proposal, the template never links to that essay; instead, it links to WP:NPOV, appropriately drawing attention to a policy that covers the nuances related to documenting criticisms. My read of WP:NPOV leads me to conclude that the template should not be deleted. 64.151.28.144 (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template would be better if it did link to the essay. Pushing a POV without recognizing the difference between policy and that POV is misleading. When other templates exist that encourage the same policy without the POV implications, those templates should be used instead. YardsGreen (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template implies that WP:NPOV recommends against criticism sections, a position not supported by consensus. Chick Bowen 05:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - criticism sections are among the top anathema of content on this encyclopedia, if not #1 itself. And I might point out that WP:STRUCTURE is in fact a policy; the text of this template doesn't go beyond what that policy section states (contrary to Chick's position above; sorry). As for the (now straw man) argument sure to come up that a problem template shouldn't exist, but rather we should fix the problem: it's the same as other problem templates; if it were that easy to just fix it, we'd have a near perfect encyclopedia. But we don't - many of us lack the writing skills, time, or will to make large scale changes. Yes I realize WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good argument, but in this case I'm also referencing the countless deletion discussions that have existed around problem templates before and nearly always found that they are a net positive (i.e., the arguments are still valid). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll upgrade my recommendation to VERY STRONG DELETE if that somehow makes it more persuasive. Croctotheface (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • By my reading of WP:STRUCTURE, this template does go beyond policy for the reason noted by RoninBK below. Under WP:STRUCTURE, criticism sections are undesirable because of problems they may create. If these problems exist in an article, the appropriate specific template for those problems should be used. Rewriting the article to remove criticism sections without addressing the underlying problems results in an even worse article. YardsGreen (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: Croctotheface: I happen to feel very strongly about this nomination; as strongly as I ever feel about an XFD discussion.
      • Re: YardsGreen: then we can reword it to say verbatim what policy says. If policy is clear that the section often leads to POV problems, and someone sees this section leading to POV problems, then there should be no problem in tagging it. Frankly, the tag can be removed if there are no POV issues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using modifiers like "very strong" don't help the discussion. I do in fact feel very strongly that this template does more harm than good. I feel rather strongly just about every time I participate in a discussion like this one. However, I don't add some kind of modifier like "very strong" to my comments because doing so can hurt the discussion. It can influence the closing admin, even subconsciously, to consider a "very strong" comment more strongly (dare I say "very strongly") compared to a "regular" comment. Croctotheface (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you have added such modifiers in your comments, in a manner that makes fun of another user. People can use these modifiers if they like, it will make no difference to the closing admin's decision. Neither will your insistence that you feel strongly about it. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it could make a difference to the closing admin. As I said, the difference could be subconscious, considering that discussions need to be closed even when they're close. And in all seriousness, it is important to protect my comment against being devalued by "very strong" comments that could overshadow my not-so-"strong" opinion. Croctotheface (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps I don't feel as strongly as either of you. Even so, Magog the Ogre, such a rewording would just reinforce the points I've made below. If the criticism section creates a POV problem, then a {{POV}} tag should be used. The rewording you suggest is even more redundant to {{POV}} than the current template. Moreover, the existence of a {{Criticism section}} tag will encourage the removal of all such sections, even though they are sometimes appropriate (even if rarely). YardsGreen (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • By that logic, then we should be removing the clause on criticism sections from the policy. And yet, it's there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • And by that logic, we should have a tag for every clause in Wikipedia policy. By my reading, WP:NPOV does not prohibit criticism sections, but rather points out that they "may result in an unencyclopedic structure…" Indeed, the footnote says there are "varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate." Given that there is no consensus that criticism sections are always bad, the tags that we use should reflect the problems that are actually present in the article, rather than possible symptoms of problems that may or may not actually be present. YardsGreen (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and modify Sometimes these sections are appropriate just as worded, often we can find a more appropriate and less pejorative wording, often we should not have them. There is consensus, but the is that they are often but not always a n inferior way of organizing material , not that they are never warranted. The wording may need to be softened a little, but we should have someway of marking ones that someone objects to. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how marking a known problematic section with two seperate generic templates would be better than marking with a more specific and informative template message.Jdrewitt (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is why the section is problematic in the first place. Is it problematic because the section is titled "Criticism" or is it problematic because the section likely skews the article towards a certain POV? If the former is true, then this is a personal stylistic preference that can be raised on the article's talk page. If the latter is true, then the {{POV}} tag is less generic than {{Criticism section}}, since it addresses the actual problem with the section, rather than the symptom. YardsGreen (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. We can clarify the text to distinguish discouragement from prohibition, but criticism sections are rarely a positive force in our project. Absent this template, I'd be pushing for consensus to recreate it within a matter of weeks.   — C M B J   22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's just remove all criticism from every article. That'll really give things a neutral point of view! --75.167.192.135 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom, I agree that there is a difference between discouraged and never appropriate. The problem is however that the mere fact that the article is flagged with a template indicates to the reader that there is something inherently wrong with this. I do not believe that a "kinder, gentler" wording of the template would remove that inherent message. I believe that we should reserve mainspace templates like this for the "never appropriate," and let's keep stylistic disputes to the Talk pages and noticeboards. -- RoninBK T C 07:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Never mind what you feel about criticism sections themselves. The core issue is whether an article violates WP:NPOV. If it does, there is already a template to mark the article or section as POV: {{POV}}. We do not need another. If the editor suspects POV due to the presence of a criticism section, but does not have the time or knowledge to check for themselves, they should use {{POV-check}}. YardsGreen (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: policy is clear, criticism sections (and other segregations by POV) are to be avoided where possible. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-word so as not to suggest that all critisism sections cause the article to fail NPOV. The template should only be used in articles where the critisism section causes the article to fail WP:NPOV. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and re-word as follows: "An editor believes that this article's inclusion of a Criticism or Controversy section gives undue weight to negative aspects of the article's subject in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." RJaguar3 | u | t 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would rather re-word as "This Criticism or Controversy section(s) may not present a neutral point of view giving undue weight to negative aspects of the article's subject." This acts a disclaimer for those users reading the article and highlights the problem to editors who may be willing to alter the prose to bring it inline with WP:NPOV. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the problem is WP:NPOV, then the {{POV}} tag should be used. If the problem is WP:UNDUE, then {{Undue}} should be used. According to WP:TFD, reason #2 under Reasons to Delete a Template is "The template is redundant to a better-designed template." If {{Criticism section}} is to be just a pointer to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, then the specific tags for those policies are better-designed: they are more clear and more likely to result in changes to the article that actually solve the underlying problems. The {{Criticism section}} tag necessarily encourages superficial changes. For example, the NoScript article's "Criticism" section was renamed to "Notes" but otherwise unchanged in response to this tag, which has been in place since May. Surely it would be better to draw attention directly to the problems of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE rather than draw attention to the superficial problem of labeling sections as "Criticism" or "Controversy". Rewording the template won't solve the problem, but using {{POV}} or {{Undue}} instead will. YardsGreen (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues arise directly from the criticism section and since this appears to be a common occurance there is no harm having a more specific template. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for what it's worth, my understanding is that another criticism of criticism sections is that they do the opposite of what you'd have the template say--that the section draws all sorts of criticism in and thereby minimizes it. I think that YardsGreen's solution is a good one--if an editor has a problem with a criticism section, let them put the NPOV tag on the article and explain their position on the talk page. Then, a consensus can form about whether the criticism section is appropriate or about how to address the content in another way. Croctotheface (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template that is proposed is essentially an NPOV template, with a mention of UNDUE, but specific to the actual criticism section, which is clearly often problematic. It is better to have a more specific template than using the generic NPOV tag. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism sections are often problematic, but not always. Tags that identify the actual problem with the section are necessarily more specific than this one. YardsGreen (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been careful to say "often problematic" and by all accounts this is true. The template should only be used on those sections that actually cause a problem and the template should be re-worded for clarification as discussed. You have an issue with the fact that the current template suggests all such sections are bad. But it is for this very reason that many of the users who have commented here support a re-word of the template instead of deleting it altogether.Jdrewitt (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Magog the Ogre. Kelly hi! 08:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reword for clarity. Criticism sections in an article almost never need to exist, because a good article will have that interwoven throughout the rest of the text. This template identifies a legitimate issue and just because it may be unclear or misapplied does not mean it should be deleted altogether. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rewording it makes it overlap too much with the NPOV templates. Criticism sections have no place in articles - it just goes without saying. It's poor style to just dump all criticism in one section. Any criticism should be integrated into other sections of the article. But at the minimum, these sections should be renamed the less POV "Controversy" and tagged with NPOV-section tags. For certain works they can be cleaned up into more even-handed "Reception" sections. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the anti-criticism section stuff began to take hold in response to something Jimmy Wales said. In his comment, he specifically said that criticism sections are sometimes appropriate. Croctotheface (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion for Rewording Although I would prefer the template to be deleted, if it must be kept I believe it should be rewritten to better reflect policy. Namely, that criticism sections are not themselves bad (and in some cases, are appropriate), but rather tend to lead to bad writing. That is, a criticism section should be seen as a reason to check for neutrality and other problems, rather than a problem in itself. To that end, I would support a rewording along the lines of {{POV-check}}, such as "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality because it includes a Criticism or Controversy section(s). Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page." YardsGreen (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to Jdrewitt: I think our disagreement boils down to where we think this template would be appropriate, and where we think it is likely to be used. You believe that it should only be used on criticism sections where there is actually a problem, and that with a minor rewording, this can be accomplished. I believe that without extensive rewriting (see my "Suggestion for Rewording" above), it will continue to be applied to any and all criticism sections by those who believe that all criticism sections are necessarily bad. To prevent this, I would support a rewrite along the lines of {{POV-check}}. That is, I believe the next step that the template encourages should be to check whether there is a problem at all, and discuss any problems found, rather than immediately dismantle the tagged section. In the absence of such a rewriting, I would continue to support deleting the template. YardsGreen (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template is simply not sending the right message about WP:NPOV. If we are trying to get articles to be well-balanced, then recommending the deletion of the criticism section is not the right direction to be taking. Even rewording cannot make this template useful in the article space. Logan Talk Contributions 10:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Critical information should be concentrated in an appropriate section. Criticism is part of a reception of something, and an article without a reference of its reception (either positive or negative) would be incomplete. Since I first saw that template, Criticism sections begun to disappear. NPOV always was and is a standard policy and there is always a template a mechanism for it. pictureuploader (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jdrewitt Some criticism sections do give undue weight to an article, and rewording the template to indicate that would be best, not deleting it entirely. JB Adder | Talk 11:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and likely reword: "controversy" sections are an easy way to just pile up negative content in one place, but also as easy a way to pile up unmitigated positive comment elsewhere. If there is legitimately a controversy, discuss the issue in the appropriate part of the article. If there are multiple or opposing views, give the section a better title, and structure the content better. The existence of a "controversy" or "criticism" heading encourages poorly-structured articles, and it's good to have a template to call out this specific problem. (So, in fact, I disagree strongly with Croctotheface's statement above, and think that requiring that no section be titled merely "controversy" or "criticism" leads to better articles, but I don't so much believe that criticism sections make that section bad so much as that they make the rest of the article bad too.) --Geoffrey 02:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree. It doesn't matter what the title of the section is if real WP:POV and WP:Undue problems are present in the section. This leads to sections being renamed with all the content of the section left in tact. For an example, see the page history at NoScript. This template was added to the page some months ago. Some time later, in response an editor renamed the "Criticism" section to the "Notes" section, leaving every other word of the section in place. If you really dislike the specific words "criticism" and "controversy", that is a personal preference, and you are free to change the section titles on every page you come across. But templates should not be used to push personal preferences. They should be used to help identify the real problem, which is usually POV. YardsGreen (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per YardsGreen, While I too am willing to see it reworded as per some other suggestions I have a pretty hard time imagining how any such action will produce a template which is not redundant and better served by more precise ones. Adding the template in the cases where an article does not merit the tag at all might or might not be filtered out by the community either. I recognize and agree that such is rare. Rare enough, in fac,t to justify, in good faith, a newer editor wondering upon seeing such a section and just slapping that tag on 'just in case'. Therein is, ultimately, what makes me feel that the tag is not helpful. If it's a big enough problem that other tags cover it better, and if there are, indeed, such issues the tags noted should be added not a tag that in my view reads as if the template itself is guilty of weasel words. And indeed "an editor or some editors feel" may soon find itself marked with who tags and the like. I do not support a continuum_fallacy view either, I recognize that just being vague alone does not make the tag invalid but here it does make it less than helpful, and may well smack, somewhat, of do as I say not as I do. If it "may" or "may not" be a problem then the editor should raise concerns on the talk page of the article if they feel uncomfortable making a change directly or making the decision which more specific tag belongs. If they are not uncomfortable, or do not feel that more consensus is required, then they should be more precise and actually find what the actual problems are; if indeed there are any. (Off hand cases where public media openly declare specific conversations and/or arguments as controversies or where there is much volatility and division of public opinion i.e. there may in fact be a controversy by definition, seem to be to be times where using the words controversy may be appropriate. Criticism, given several other denotations, including very specific scholarly ones, has several more I can readily imagine.) I have not been an active contributor in such discussions for quite a while and have not even edited much outside IP edits but I have to agree with the general points being made and hope my position is cogent even if not agreed with. If more precision is possible in communicating a problem, especially if a problem MAY or MAY NOT exist, precision is the way to go not vagary. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is undeniably concerns with this template; this is the second time this template has been nominated for deletion. If these concerns can be resolved thru rewording the template &/or the associated doc file, then we should keep this template; if not, then it should be deleted. I believe we can agree that certain "Criticism" sections should be kept: "Criticism of Microsoft", for example, goes far beyond the quality of their products (which suck) to being either a mass obsession or cultural meme, worthy of its own article. (And frankly, almost any criticism of Microsoft's business practices can be applied to other software companies, e.g. I wouldn't be surprised if Oracle has imposed sales quotas on all of its employees -- even QA testers & secretaries.) On the other hand, most criticism sections either would work far better by integrating their contents into the rest of the article, or are opportunity for various individuals to push their agenda (e.g., a given person, company, or thing sucks, & why you need to know this). There is a problem here; we just need to figure out the best way to address it, so it gets fixed with a minimum of WikiDrama. -- llywrch (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is not a good way to make a decision on the use of criticism sections--there is probably consensus that they should sometimes but not very often be used, with minority positions for never, and for whenever possible. The thing to do in such a case is to keep the template & match it to the current state of things. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that you describe the current consensus as far as the use of criticism sections. However, this template strongly reinforces the "never" viewpoint that you don't believe is supported by consensus. Frequently, this template leads editors to either change the name of the section to something innocuous or to copy/paste the sentences from the criticism section and scatter them haphazardly throughout the article. That has almost certainly happened on occasions where it would've been appropriate to use a criticism section rather than some other mode of organization. The current consensus view can certainly still prevail without this template. Croctotheface (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Croctotheface, and would add that it may be impossible to "keep the template & match it to the current state of things" without making the template entirely redundant to other, more specific templates. YardsGreen (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is quite often a use for criticism sections, and a template saying they shouldn't exist is simply wrong and doesn't reflect any policy. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant with {{POV-section}} and {{POV-check-section}}. --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep and (perhaps) reword I don't really have a problem with the current wording but it looks like a couple of editors have some ideas for improving the template. BTW, if it is common practice for WP:GOOD and WP:FA articles to include criticism sections, that would strengthen the case for deletion. 64.151.28.144 (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't think of any reason to delete a NPOV tag. Ronewirl (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, gotta have a way to convince people that criticism sections are frowned upon from two different directions: WP:MoS and NPOV. Abductive (reasoning) 07:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Criticism sections are not always wrong per se, as has already been said many times. The issue is NPOV and UNDUE. Would it be a 'fix' for an article to which this template is applied to delete the criticism section? No. Is an article which mainly pushes a POV with no criticism better than one which at least has a criticism section? No. So attention should not be drawn to the section itself. It's not the issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I got here by following the link from [[2]]. This article does not advance a POV, and the Criticism section cites a ref. The template just lends spurious authority to non-policy viewpoint. --catslash (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Criticism and controversy sections are almost always a neutrality nightmare (there are rare and obvious exceptions). While each of the two words as headings carry appearance air of neutral respectability, in reality the sections are just a dumping ground to pile on criticism and/or trivia. The template serves as a very useful tool that very articulately explains the problem and flag it for cleanup. I’ve seen it work on many occasion (ie, relevant info merged, trivia removed) providing better articles as a result). Either I’ve used it and someone’s cleaned it up, or vice versa. --Merbabu (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as nominator, My opinion has changed. The NPOV policy clearly states that criticism articles are not neutral and if you have any common sense in you, that policy should trickle down to criticism sections as well. I am not going to withdraw my nom however. Marcus Qwertyus 09:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad to know that anyone who disagrees with you lacks common sense... More to the point, WP:NPOV clearly says there are "varying views" on whether and when criticism sections are appropriate. The essay that this template rests on is one extreme viewpoint that is clearly not reflected either in policy or in general consensus. YardsGreen (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Criticism sections are not always a bad thing, and there's no reason to have a template pushing the views of a mere essay, which by definition reflects only the opinion of the essay writer, not Wikipedia policy or the consensus of editors. — Red XIV (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:STRUCTURE is policy as part of NPOV, so this in no way relies on an essay. Additionally, WP:CRIT is somewhat a popular essay, and isn't a rule because of instruction creep more than anything. Sceptre (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Specify: I think there needs to be some SERIOUS retooling of this criticism, a criticism should not be a place for users to go and whine. I say, in the instance of Windows Vista it should ONLY be used when there is press-written criticism. For example, the NY Times criticized Vista over it's copying of Mac OS X features. That is acceptable in my POV. What isn't acceptable is people who say "Vista lacks......" No personal gripes, just professional criticism in the criticism sections. Wanderson9 (talk) 08:19, 8 January 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_January_1&oldid=1088097838"