Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 1

< July 31	August 2 >

August 1

Template:Olympic Games American Football

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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic Games American Football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost useless template with only 4 links and used only on 2 pages. Zappa O Mati 18:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wait a couple of decades and if the Olympics decide to include American football, then you might have a need for this. -- Atama頭 16:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks a bit silly & confusing. Article will be better without it. – Fayenatic London 17:06, 3 August 2012 (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:Proposed deletion endorsed

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 oppose merger Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Proposed deletion endorsed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Proposed deletion/dated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Proposed deletion endorsed with Template:Proposed deletion/dated.
Such merge would allow keeping all rationales behind proposed deletion together, visually separated from the instructions for contesting PROD and notifying authors, making proposed deletion templates occupy less space (specifically removing repetitive statements and translating rationale-less endorses in pure count), reducing the instruction creep and endorsing additional comments. There is also a slight side benefit in that there is only one template to remove, though it was not the purpose. To make things clearer, I've prepared an example diff and showcase. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC) updated 18:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that these templates are about the same thing. Proposed deletion endorsed is about endorsing a proposal, while Proposed deletion/dated is the proposal itself. Am I missing something? Debresser (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These templates are not on the same things, but both of them are supposed to contain the proposed deletion rationale. The whole function of {{proposed deletion endorsed}} can be implemented in {{proposed deletion/dated}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how you're going to get people to say "endorsedX= rationale" to work properly. It's a result of a substitution template to prevent people from messing up the parameters. Now you're asking people to mess with the parameters. Further, you have a hard limit on the endorsements, there is no such limit in the current system. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as I see it, the problematic parameter in this case is |timestamp=, which is expected to confuse editors; in this case all is needed is to read docs and to make an edit which is not more difficult then editing an infobox. BTW, I'm pretty confident that nearly all of this template's users are pretty familiar with using templates with parameters. Regarding the limit: well, this issue isn't severe IMO, as I never saw more them two {{proposed deletion endorsed}} together, and, well, disability to clutter the page with 1-2 scrolls full of proposed deletion stuff is a feature, not a bug. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, No benefit seen, does not simplify anything for the person using the template, both messages have different (but simular) messages. Jeepday (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Simular? Updated the initial statement to explain benefits in more detail. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Are you familiar with WP:WPPDP? It is composed of volunteers who look at articles pending proposed deletion, and judge whether or not the proposed deletion rationale is valid. They will check to see if an article is viable for proposed deletion at all, and then check to see if the argument holds weight (which 99% of the time is an insistence that the subject isn't notable). The patroller will then either remove the proposed deletion tag or leave an endorsement. When an admin comes along later to clean up expired proposed deletions, the presence of an endorsement tag is helpful because it means another editor has already done some of the legwork. Your template merger proposal eliminates the option of using endorsement tag, cuts out much of the purpose of the WikiProject, and makes things harder for administrators who review expired prods (like myself). -- Atama頭 16:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain, how does this proposal changes the situation? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - {{Proposed deletion endorsed}} is seperate from the proposed deletion/dated template - merger is quite simply not an option, they have different roles - and it is useful to have additional views when endorsing a prod, to allow for other points of view to be included that the original proposer may have not noticed. I would wholeheartedly oppose merging this template. BarkingFish 18:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I specifically included an example implementation (diff and showcase) to demonstrate that no functionality loss is proposed. I'm starting to get an impression that nobody read the actual proposal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI, Dmitrij, i have read the proposal. I still don't feel that the proposed merger provides any benefit, and indeed only serves to compact stuff which should be kept seperate. My !vote to oppose this merger stands. BarkingFish 18:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you want to move the endorsements to the talk page? For what reason? That just makes it so that administrators have to look around for it. I still think it's a bad idea, just not as bad as I originally thought. I'm speaking as an admin who cleans up proposed deletions and gets a lot of help from these templates. -- Atama頭 19:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, the endorsements are moved into the {{proposed deletion/dated}} itself as shown here. BTW, this would allow to add page to categories following templates like "Endorsed proposed deletion as of 31 July 2012", if that would be considered useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I got it, your example was on the talk page but the actual template would go in article space. So you're just wanting to put the endorsement template into the existing template, hence the merge. That sounds terribly complicated compared to just adding another template. I'd much rather add a template then go in and modify a template someone else added, it's just easier for people to understand. I think I see what you're trying to do, making the template cleaner, but I think it's at the expense of making it more difficult for the person reviewing the prod. Also, it's rare for more than one person to endorse a proposed deletion, because doing so is redudant, it's like having two different New Page Patrollers checking a page. -- Atama頭 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There are valid instances of several {{proposed deletion endorsed}}, eg. when initial rationale is weak (or doesn't fully address the issue), and someone already endorsed it. BTW, IP complains above that having 9 |endorseN= is too limiting. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I get the idea, to insert a line into an existing template rather than adding {{prod2}}, but am not yet convinced that it's a worthwhile improvement. BTW, your documentation is inconsistent between parameters endorseN and endorsedN. Some questions on points of detail:

Q1. Do you have any proposals for transition? e.g. if editors use PROD2, would it appear with a message stating "this template is deprecated, please insert/complete a line |endorsed1 = [rationale] etc. "?

Q2. When the original PROD is subst'd, would it add in blank lines for |endorsed1 = |endorsed2 = etc, and will these be ignored if empty? – Fayenatic London 16:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expected this nomination to be closed with consensus over endorsement or opposition towards the merge with all details to be worked out. I personally think that there should be a transitional period when deprecation notice linking to PROD/dated#Usage; this period would end after some period (eg. month) of no long lasting (>5 min) transclusions of PROD2. I would like PROD substitution to add |endorsed1= (but not 2–9: intuitive, rare). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Q3: The talk page notification for a prod does not include additional rationales expressed in prod2 templates, and once a notification is issued we must assume that the page creator read it unedited and never got back to it. Does this mean it is okay for a page creator to just remove the original prod without looking into the additional rationales expressed by third parties? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't share this concern. Additional rationales are easy to spot, as is the number of endorses. If needed, the original rationale could be visually separated from the endorser's concerns (I didn't separate them to reduce the number of parser functions). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nominator's rationale is not compelling, and all prod and prod2 templates can be removed with a single edit. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain this? Currently one still can remove PROD together with all PROD2s without reading. I see no real change in this regard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As one of the regular PROD patrollers, I find this extremely useful. It enables me to easily make a comment supporting the deletion when its in a field where I have some knowledge, or where I've checked beyond what the original prodder seems to have done and found nothing additional. And when I work on deleting the expired prods as an admin, this is something I take very strongly into account, especially if I sufficiently trust the prod2 editor. There is something we should do about this template: we should use it more often. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I propose to bring PROD2's functionality to PROD, not to simply deprecate PROD2. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A merge implies duplication. Here, each template does something different: {{Proposed deletion/dated}} is the original tag (with rationale), and {{Proposed deletion endorsed}} means that a second editor (a second set of eyes) concurs. This must make it somewhat easier for the PROD patrollers. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2012 (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.