Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 16 January 18 >

January 17

[edit]

Template:Supplement

[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 debate was keep. нмŵוτнτ 03:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This template says that a page in Wikipedia namespace is a "supplement" to another such page. The result is already confusing - we have a bit too many debates on whether pages are policy, guideline, essay or something else, and adding more categories muddles the issue. More importantly, this template has a tendency to get used to "attach" pages to a policy, that in fact contradict that policy (e.g. Wikipedia:Silence_is_consensus was considered a "supplement" to Wikipedia:Consensus, whereas I'm quite sure that most people don't agree that silence equals consent). Since there is already an edit war over the wording of the template (essentially, a very brief one vs. one that says "this page is not policy"), it would seem that the template is a net detriment to wikispace, and we had best get rid of it. >Radiant< 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: WP:WIARM and WP:ATT are good examples of pages for which this is appropriate, even though the latter doesn't actually use the template. In general it's good for pages for which there is consensus for the content, but not for making them policy for some reason or another. Update: if this template is going to imply essay, then Delete (since I don't see the point), and we'll create a new template that means something like "wide consensus but not policy". —Ashley Y 06:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Once again, Radiant has nominated a template for deletion on the basis that it can be abused. As I've noted on several occasions, any template can be abused. When used appropriately, this happens to be a useful tag. The solution, therefore, is to counteract the misuses, not to delete the template.
    The wording is something that can be discussed, and the fact that it has been the subject of a dispute is another bad justification for deleting the template. (Imagine how small Wikipedia would be if we deleted everything with disputed wording.) —David Levy 23:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm nominating it on the grounds that it is abused. TFD is precisely the place to discuss that, so could you please lay off the ad hominems? >Radiant< 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any ad hominems in David's argument. Rockstar (T/C) 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first line - not talking about the statement, but about the person making it. >Radiant< 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the template is abused, but only provide one example of the template being used for something you disagree with. That is hardly a sound rationale for deletion, so David may not be too off base here. Instead of screaming NPA (thereby indirectly making an ad hominem on him in an attempt to debase his argument), you might consider replying to his concerns. Rockstar (T/C) 00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the mere fact that a template is abused is not grounds for a TfD listing (especially without first attempting to rectify the problem via ordinary discussion). It can be a factor (combined with a lack of utility), but it isn't a valid reason to delete a useful template.
Secondly, I'm not attacking you; I'm criticising your rationale (which you have unsuccessfully used in the past), and I managed to do so without invoking WP:DICK. —David Levy 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disagreeing with one instance of the use of a template is not a sound excuse to nominate it for deletion. There are quite a few examples of this template being used properly (as noted by Ashley Y above); furthermore, echoing David, not only is this tag useful, but it has already been used in consensus making (see WP:WIARM). Supplement pages don't muddle the pages they supplement; rather, they expand and elaborate on wording within a policy page that requires explanation, and if merged into the policy, would crowd the page's core spirit and message. Rockstar (T/C) 23:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or redirect (to Template:Essay) This template seems kind of silly. It's only used on four pages, and could just as easily be done with a custom note or a generic message box. Being a supplement really isn't formal, nor does it need (or have) any explanation text. But whatever. I could see keeping this if it made it clear that the page itself is not a policy or guideline, but.. eh.. still seems needless. I understand the concerns Radiant has on it being misused, and am inclined to agree with him. -- Ned Scott 10:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the template's intended purpose was not to create a new page classification. It was created to serve as a variant of the {{essay}} tag (providing a convenient link to the relevant policy or guideline), just as we have several variants of the {{guideline}} tag that explain the host pages' connection to other pages (without implying that we have different "levels" of guideline). Your concerns could be addressed by reverting to an earlier version of the template (which used the standard essay icon, placed host pages in Category:Wikipedia essays, and explicitly noted that said pages were not policies or guidelines). We could even move the template back to its former title, {{supplemental essay}}. —David Levy 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. In that case, it seems these issues can be solved outside of deletion. Keep -- Ned Scott 04:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently unsure. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete use the see also section or integrate the page into the text of the page it supplements. We don't need to create more and more headers delineating the exact nature of a page. Let's avoid becoming too much of a bureaucracy, let's avoid more creep, let's avoid more scope for tag warring and let's trust the reading comprehension of the people who use Wikipedia. Hiding T 12:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if one of the stated examples didn't use the template, I think that calls into question the utility. We got by for years without this when we had WP:RS and WP:CITE expanding on points from WP:V. Hiding T 12:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{essay}}: If something needs to be supplemented we click the edit button. If something is policy we label it as policy. If something is opinion we label it an essay. This tag gives a false sense of legitimacy to items that should be labeled as an essay or a policy or a guideline. "Supplement" has no accepted meaning as to status and it obfuscates the authority behind a page. This template seems to have been invented to replace essay tags on essays that have no consensus to be more than an essay, I have removed it from WP:BRD and WP:UCS, two essays that suddenly magically became policy supplements, this is exactly the type of confusion that needs to be avoided. 1 != 2 18:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not why the template was invented (please see my above reply to Ned Scott), and I'll thank you to kindly stop assuming bad faith.
Once again, the solution is to adjust the template (possibly reverting to an earlier version) and remove inappropriate uses, not to eliminate the tag entirely. —David Levy 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it remains clear it is a type of essay - I apologies. When I said that I had recently encountered arguments that these supplements are not "essays" anymore, and I wrongly assumed this was linked to the motive for its creation. I have edited the template to make it clear that it is still an essay, if it sticks fine, but if it is reverted then my original concerns remain in place. The reason it was invented, and the purpose it currently serves may have deviated, this edit[1] will see. (1 == 2)Until 02:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted.  :-)
For the record, I'm fine with the inclusion of the word "essay." The template's original version also contained it. —David Levy 04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I think serious problems exist on process pages, such as traditionalism and failure to acknowledge consensus. (A similar problem might be the fact that there is no mechanism in place to objectively identify consensus when it occurs.) I think these "supplements" are a manifestation of this problem - rather than try to work to change a policy against the wishes of vocal groups who engage in edit-warring to preserve "the right version" of the policy, editors find it easier to write an essay and work on getting it consensus, leading to the supposed need for this template.
    In the end, this template really is unnecessary - a page about a policy is either a proposal or an essay. A "supplement" should be merely added to the policy; none of Wikipedia's policies are overly long enough to prohibit this.
    Serious thought should be given to the way policy is decided, and reform may be necessary. But XfD is not the place to decide that, and ultimately the decision made here won't impact that. I'm abstaining because I feel like this template has no place on Wikipedia, but it's better than what it would be replaced by, which is the "essay" tag. - Chardish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an essay then seeking consensus for making it policy is a good way to make policy. One can used the {{proposed}} template for that. I do agree that this template is in response to talk page discussion and bold edits failing to achieve certain changes in policy and that people are attempting to give essays a more than the advisory status they currently hold. I do not think there has been any impropriety in the opposition to these changes, the problem those seeking to implement them have encountered is a lack of consensus for such changes. This template does seem to me to be an attempt to bypass that lack of consensus. 1 != 2 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The {{proposed}} process has been thoroughly debunked, the pages describing it gutted and redirected, and references to it are being slowly removed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to say that. Nearly all {{proposed}} pages get struck down; the process for proposing a new policy is terrible and very few people understand the concept of consensus. Rockstar (T/C) 19:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damning with faint praise eh? ^^;; I agree with your analysis. I just think that a more accurate summary for MFD purposes would be Keep, for now, but that's up to you. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is it possible to have a non-mainspace page without a tag? WIARM is a great example of a page that is really very useful to inexperienced editors, and gives behavioral advice that cannot be ignored without being blocked. Tagging a page like that with {{essay}} gives the wrong impression to new users and is often contradictory: they do have to follow all the advice on the page, but would be immediately told by the template that they don't. Tagging a page like WIARM with {{essay}} does not help to improve Wikipedia; it only helps to confuse new users. And so I ask: can we have a non-mainspace page without a template? There are certainly examples of pages that are more than essays but less than policies/guidelines... if we get rid of {{supplement}}, how would we approach these pages? Rockstar (T/C) 19:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominators argument can also be reversed: We have a bit too many debates on whether pages are policy, guideline, essay or something else, and adding a safe haven category can stop such debates dead. Also, many guidance pages are overly large, so splitting them over multiple pages is a Good IdeaTM. See also comment by Chardish, above.
    Radiant: I know that we disagree on whether the policy/guideline/essay system is useful, but I don't think it's nice to go on a mission to eradicate anything that might be a potential threat. If the community discovers that one system or the other is more efficient, it'll be used. In the situation of Silence is consensus, you don't have to agree with the page, since it simply states a known fact about how wikis operate, even though none of us really has to like that. It's a bit silly to delete a tag used on many pages, just because you hate the one page. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)    [reply]
  • Delete, David's reversion reminds me. It was THAT template, which was basically designed to subvert the poldetail idea. Declaring descriptions of best practices as "essay" is a favorite wikinomic game (where people play on policy pages and try to "win" their political games, as opposed to actually working on describing best practices). Do not feed the trolls. Will be removing from all pages now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I went to check, and no pages reference this template anymore, it is orphaned. Now a Speedy candidate? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? —David Levy 04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that you'd stop unilaterally overruling consensus via your cryptic "nomic" references. This routine has grown quite tiresome. —David Levy 04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a person assumes that (1)wikipedia policy pages are actually "rules to be followed"; and (2) changes you make to policy pages will change the behavior of wikipedians; then from that POV, the wikipedia project namespace has the exact same properties as the game of Nomic.
Nomic itself is a game that was designed to demonstrate potential fatal deficiencies that occur in self governing systems based on those two assumptions. So if possible, you should try to avoid them.
Does that make sense so far? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC) ref: The Paradox of Self-Amendment, Peter Suber, 1990[reply]
Not really. IAR makes it clear that the rules do not need to be followed, and changes to policy are unlikely to change common practice, policy is supposed to reflect practice not dictate it. Even taking your points into account I really don't understand what you are trying to get at with the game comparison, do you think Wikipedia has some fundamental flaw in its system of self-regulation? If so, then this is not really the forum. (1 == 2)Until 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your description is exactly right, and I believe that wikipedia works just fine. The design you mention ensures that we do not fall into the Nomic trap. However, there are people who disagree with you, and haven't heard of nomic besides. :-) They believe that wikipedia (should) work in the way I just mentioned, and it takes a lot of work to explain things to them. --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand what your argument is. As far as I can tell your objection is that the template is "designed to subvert the poldetail idea". Well I don't know the word "poldetail" and neither does Google. I think your comment about people labeling best practices essays as part of some attempt at gaming is wrong for two reasons. 1) They were created as essays by the original authors not some special interest group trying to game the system, and 2) It is only opinion that pages such as WP:BRD are in fact "best practices". I would say BRD is one of many accepted editing practices. (1 == 2)Until 15:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She's talking about Template:Poldetail. Apples and oranges. Poldetail was a bad template (tried to infer something was policy when it wasn't). Supplement describes the article as an essay and explains what the essay is based on. A tad different. Justin chat 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, it can be useful. "Summaries" of policies may bring clarity which can't be achieved by simply by making a policy page. A good example (and also apparently the reason Radiant proposed this deletion) is WP:No credential policy. You can't make a policy page or policy proposal for that article, because it's not about policy: It's about non-policy. It would be self-contradictory to have a policy page which states, "Wikipedia's policy is that there is no policy on X." That's where policy summaries come in.
    In the case of WP:BRD, it does seem to be used the way that Radiant describes, however, because WP:BRD makes pretty unique assertions that aren't necessarily clear from policy pages cited. As it seems to me, WP:BRD should be made a behavior guideline, not a "policy summary," because, well, that's what it is.
    Lastly, the template should not put articles in the category "wikipedia essays," because "policy summaries," hold greater weight than essays. Policy summaries build on consensus for sake of clarity and informing editors, without making unique assertions, while essays are unique assertions of individual opinion, or group opinion that doesn't yet have consensus. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in any of the definitions of the word "essay" precluding the possibility that the statements contained therein are backed by consensus. —David Levy 01:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David Levy, stuff on third-party websites might have consensus. Stuff in your brain might have consensus. Stuff you might have printed on a t-shirt might have consensus. When they don't have an "official Wikipedia stamp of approval," however, such as the words, "policy" or "guideline," nobody is going to care and lots of people will just ignore it. That's basically the purpose of codifying policy and guidelines to begin with, to streamline consensus by informing people on the status of current consensus. Otherwise, it could all just be sitting on a notepad in Jimbo's desk. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your Google search is interesting, but please see this one. We have many misconceptions around here, and there's no need to fuel them by inventing new meanings for common English words. —David Levy 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But include in the notice a statement that the article tagged enjoys consensus. And of course limit it's use to pages where consensus exist. Taemyr (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, what you said is true. Hold on, I'm going to write an essay on this. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2008 (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:Mongol alliances

[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 debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 03:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mongol alliances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

POV template, being used to promote several POV fork articles, pushing a bias that the Mongols had a series of alliances. This template and the related articles were created by one editor, User:PHG, in an attempt to dodge consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Elonka 20:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Strongly POV given the dispute at Franco-Mongol alliance as to (a) whether there was such an alliance and (b) whether this is an appropriate title for the article. There also seems to be dispute as to whether the articles on the template are POV forks of that article - they contain a lot of the same content about the same period in the same part of the world. This template seems to escalate those disputes. Better that editors agree a structure for Wikipedia's content in this area before creating a template about the series. WjBscribe 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete per WP:BALLS. The verifiable evidence does not support the existence of these alliances. My past investigations into this walled garden of Mongol Alliance articles has convinced me that this stuff is original research and misinterpretation of references. I am wondering when Wikipedia is going to put an end to this. Jehochman Talk 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep This template illustrates the various alliances at play in the Middle East during the Mongol Empire in the 13th-14th century. These alliances were also highly connected. The Mamluk-Mongol alliance worked as a counter-balance to the Franco-Mongol and to the Armeno-Mongol alliances. See historian Ryley-Smith for example: "When the Golden Horde allied with the Mamluks, the Ilkhanate looked towards an alliance with the Chritians" (Atlas of the Crusades, Jonathan Riley-Smith, p.112, French edition), with is the exact illustration of this template. Regards. PHG (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • PHG, we have already discussed this extensively. That the Ilkhanate "looked towards" an alliance, does not mean that there was an alliance. You keep trying to push this POV that there was an alliance, despite the the fact that multiple editors disagree with you, and we have shown you literally over a hundred quotes from modern historians showing that though there were attempts at an alliance, that there was not an alliance. This template that you've created, along with the long list of other articles, was just another attempt on your own part, to push your POV in violation of consensus. --Elonka 21:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many historians consider the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact, many say it wasn't effective (which is essentially true), and a few say it did not exist. Your are only pushing one of these points of view ("only attempts"). "Franco-Mongol alliance" is also a standard historical expression to name these events. PHG (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, though a similar template could be salvaged later when disputes are settled. As is, the template implies something more "solid" than evidence merits. Srnec (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The template's only virtue is to indicate the branches of a single editor's specious and idiosycratic research. Aramgar (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WJB. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is absurd. A template? john k (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm thinking of writing an essay on template creep, the habit people have of creating templates for everything to plaster on articles. This template doesn't really serve that much purpose. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merge back eveything into the main article until disputes are resolved. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:46, 20 January 2008 (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:Iraq War Box

[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 debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 03:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iraq War Box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hardcoded transclusion of {{Infobox Military Conflict}} that's no longer used in any article. Kirill 12:10, 17 January 2008 (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:Aust Beer Glass

[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 debate was no consensus. Template is being actively improved. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aust Beer Glass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is original research, and contains factual errors according to the talk page. The reference provided has nothing to do with the content.. -- Mark Chovain 08:17, 17 January 2008 (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_deletion/Log/2008_January_17&oldid=1142508857"