Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 15

< February 14	February 16 >

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Was duplicating {{Infobox Television episode}} all uses have been replaced with that template and the showspecific template is no longer in use now. This is part of a larger effort to remove duplicity in episode infoboxes. -- TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete as redundant and unused. Jay32183 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Was duplicating {{Infobox Television episode}} all uses have been replaced with that template and the showspecific template is no longer in use. This is part of a larger effort to remove duplicity in episode infoboxes. -- TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete as redundant and unused. Jay32183 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Was duplicating {{Infobox Television episode}} all 3 uses have been replaced with that template. This is part of a larger effort to remove duplicity in episode infoboxes. -- TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete as redundant and unused. Jay32183 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Still more box clutter/cruft introducing Wikipedia neologisms to the reader (is it even in English?) Editors on the talk page and in the history have questioned it. Template:Current can suffice for this, plus the talk page, or even prod for obvious violations. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The only problem I see with this is the use of the neologism. The idea behind this template is a good one. --- RockMFR 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep We might want to avoid saying recentism, but {{current}} and {{recentism}} serve radically different purposes. {{current}} merely notes that an event is ongoing and that major changes may be made to the article. {{recentism}}, on the other hand, suggests that the article puts too much emphasis on recent events. For example, {{recentism}} would be appropriate for winter storm if the entire article were about the recent snowstorm in North America. However, {{current}} would not be appropriate because major changes due to a current event should not be expected. -- tariqabjotu 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say recentism- if you take it to mean excessive detail- would be a danger with every article tagged with Template:Current. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  - True, but not the other way around. --- RockMFR 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  - But not all pages with recentism issues need the {{current}} template. And I don't believe your statement is true; I'm not sure why February 2007 North America winter storm has the {{recentism}} template since the article is all about recent winter storm, so it's not as if the problem is there. -- tariqabjotu 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, what's wrong with the neologism? Do you realize how difficult it would be to explain the problem in that template; wouldn't it be much easier to just use the neologism (maybe italics could be used) and just link to the appropriate page? -- tariqabjotu 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep, though probably best to rephrase and/or explain the term Modest Genius ^talk 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. There is a time when this criticism is valid. If an article hyperbolically plays up recent events while ignoring or minimizing a long history, a recentism template may be valid. (though it's not the end of the world if this template is not available, since there's always the talk page). This is a "biased" article in favor of the present. However, it is not recentism when there are simply a lot more details about recent events due to increased interest in WP in the last two years, the greater availability of easy Internet sources for recent happenings, and so on. As an example, Rick Santorum has a special section for the 2006 election with a main article, but very little on the elections in 2000 and 1994. This doesn't mean that the specific article on Pennsylvania United States Senate election, 2006 should be shortened or deleted; it means that in the long run, there are two more articles still to write on the previous elections. The article could use more information, but it's not biased.

So, given that, how is the Recentism template being used? Let's see... As Tall as Lions is a band that started in 2002, and the article is short enough that it's clearly incomplete and too early for such a tag. HP Pavilion (computer), which again is incomplete, not biased. Bajrang Dal? Same, maybe could use more information on the 80's and 90's, but that's not recentism. Turner Broadcasting System, on a section about the Boston bomb scare? I agree that the summary is too long for the main TBS article, but that's vanilla summarizing issues and could just as well happen to something in the past. Why not just shorten it to three sentences or so rather than tag it? Race and intelligence (potential for bias)? That looks like a disaster waiting to happen; it may well deserve the tag, but it probably deserves lots of tags. Basically, it seems like the template is being incorrectly applied most of the time, at least to me. A good old fashioned {{expand}} request on the "older" information seems like it would serve most of these articles better, since that wouldn't imply that there was a problem with the more recent content. In the cases where that won't work- say, summaries that are too-present heavy a la in Israeli-Palestinian conflict - I don't think that's such a horrible problem that it needs its own template. SnowFire 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete for the simple fact that it links to what amounts to a user essay, to quote: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors." Anything linking from the top of a mainspace article shouldn't be sending the reader to an as-yet-unapproved essay. Themindset 01:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I think we should re-word the template and keep it. It serves the purpose of designating an article as written in the present instead of discussing a past event, in addition to placing too much emphasis on the current event. It's use does not collide with that of the current event template. So instead of saying "this article may suffer from recentism" I'd say: "This article may place too much emphasis on a recent event". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LinguistAtLarge (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

In effect, you are recommending deleting it and creating a new one. This also does not resolve the problem of linking from the mainspace to an article that has not been endorsed by the Wikipedia community. Themindset 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Reword if you must, but this template is essential. futurebird 02:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - One of the most useful templates for working on systemic bias in the wikipedia. JJJamal 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Then would you care to explain if my examples are misapplied, or what? It doesn't seem to be very useful so far. Can you show an article that needs a recentism tag where another tag, or a very simple edit/talk page request, wouldn't be better? SnowFire 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Violates WP:ASR for a type of content problem better handled by discussion on the talk page. —Dgies^t c 16:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Rephrase to get rid of the neologism and keep it. The template serves to identify a real problem (if it gets misused, well so does {{POV}}); the only problem is how it presents that information. Gavia immer 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep per User:tariqabjotu but negate the Wikipedianism of the word "recentism" with common language that is equivalent. (→Netscott) 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep and reword to remove the neologism. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete because it refers to no specific Wikipedia policy or guideline. Just used to popularize an essay. If need be, make it a policy. Until then, Delete. ~ UBeR 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep but rename per Ryan Delaney, Gavia immer and others. There has to be a better word, or set of words, to describe this (very important) concept. Often on Wikipedia, recent, relatively minor (in a historical sense) events are poured over and made into a page so huge that you'd think something insane had just happened. For a good example, see February 2007 North America winter storm There has to be a tag for this.--IRelayer 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'll just reiterate that I think the problem is not that that storm has such a huge page, but rather that other storms don't even have pages. I'd like to one day see the Teapot Dome scandal page be as long as Mark Foley scandal with just as many cites and spinoff articles. SnowFire 03:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep This template nicely states what often needs to be stated without starting arguments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X570 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
Keep and fix terminology. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per Tariaqabjotu & others. The neologism itself doesn't bother me - here is a word with a future, surely - but the template itself could be expanded a bit. The Visual arts area has many articles on techniques etc that deal with subjects with a 2,000 year history, and describe only contemporary American practice. Johnbod 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Keepleave the neologism, I couldn't think of anything to replace it with, because this problem is quite unique to Wikipedia. Instead of writing the essay on the talkpage every time this problem occurs, it is easier to have a tag. It is not the same as the 'current'-tag, as others said.--Grace E. Dougle 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - this discussion is very strong! :) --- RockMFR 18:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- the problem is real even if the name is new. Goldfritha 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Disallow usage, aka delete -- identifying excessively detailed content caused by systemic bias has no point. This specific identification doesn't help deal with the problem any more than a simple notice to clean up an article: it merely explains the cause, which is only useful for armchair analysis, not actual cleanup. To rephrase: it does no good to announce "This article has a skewed focus and is excessively detailed, and I'll tell you why with this nifty word that I made up!" when "This article has a skewed focus and is excessively detailed" will do. Gracenotes^T § 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment mostly, as far as I am concened, this template isn't about excess detail, it's about lack of detail, or any information at all, on the less recent. Johnbod 04:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Then this template will work. Gracenotes^T § 05:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because expanding articles can aggravate recentism. When I first looked at dowry, it was just about exclusively discussing dowry in the last century. One could expand it without combating the actual issue, which is that dowry's history, which (though not worldwide) extends literally to the oldest known records, was entirely omitted. Goldfritha 15:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - many editors just don't see the problem Johnbod 15:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

To quote from the article: "Increasing education and awareness has reduced the instances of this. Actually education is the biggest hope against this evil. India had many evil systems in the past like "SATI"(where the widow would burn herself to protect the honour) were eradicated due to powerful influence of education." A result of "[inflating] the importance and effect of an issue that has received recent media attention"? I doubt it. This quotes indicates that recentism is not why this article refers extensively to recent practices, at least as defined by Wikipedia:Recentism. Gracenotes^T § 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem was putting in "current events without regard to long-term historical perspective," which is also from the definition in Wikipedia:Recentism. Sure, it contained important matters; it was still wrong to omit the entire history of the practice. (Note that the entire section on dowry in Europe was started by me.) Goldfritha 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

← I don't see what current event motivated the Dowry article to have the focus that it has today. Intentional POV-pushing was more of a factor, as I understand it. Gracenotes^T § 16:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unhealthy templatecruft Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The concept has merit. However, remove the neologism by all means, as it is most certainly not a word. Someone shouldn't have to read an essay to determine what a template is even talking about. Replace it with a short explanation of the rudimentary concept; possibly with a link to the essay if it was deemed sufficiently userful.--Dycedarg ж 02:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Utterly pointless. Indiscriminate list masquerading as template. Would be a deletion candidate even if in main namespace. --Punkmorten 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now, this page is being transcluded on two articles in the mainspace, one of which is on its way to deletion. 2000s in sports is the only page that should have this content, if any page does. If this content is to be kept, the template should be moved into the mainspace to a page such as List of sports figures in the 2000s, and then that page should be merged and redirected to 2000s in sports. --- RockMFR 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear, I think this template should be moved to the mainspace and then merged and redirected to 2000s in sports. --- RockMFR 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a list, it doesn't make sense as a navigation template. Soon it will only be used on one page. The easy solution would be to copy the list into 2000s in sports. However, as a list, the criteria are not well defined. If it only includes "important" sports figures, which ones? Or does it includes all sports "figures" like a category? Should just delete it now. Gimmetrow 11:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - templates are not to be used as page content. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly clear the content shouldn't be a template, but should the content be moved to an article or deleted outright? Gimmetrow 11:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If we subst it, it should be moved to an article since the edit history is non-trivial. --- RockMFR 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the edit history should be preserved, if the content is to remain in an article at all. But I think the list has problems as a list and will get deleted anyway. Not deleting the template (and its content) now just means it will be deleted later through AfD (and RfD for the moved edit history...) Spare the hassle. Gimmetrow 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete If it's only used in one article, can't you just subst the thing and then let the editors of that article worry about what to do with the content? It's practically half of that article at the moment.--Dycedarg ж 07:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

These set of templates were deprecated long ago in favor of {{MedalTop}} etc. and are no longer used. Redirects are not applicable because the template parameters are different. Andrwsc 18:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. GregorB 23:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --MZMcBride 02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A template to create a ready-made external link to a site that is rarely, if ever, an appropriate external link. ("Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.") --Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as against policy. Themindset 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Umm... If you're referring to SourceWatch, previously known as Disinfopedia, then you're mistaken: it is an appropriate external link. (It's not disinformation, it purports to uncover disinformation.) Anyway: template is not used and is superseded by {{SourceWatch}} anyway. GregorB 23:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February 15

[edit] Template:MonkEp

[edit] Template:Infobox The Golden Girls episode

[edit] Template:Infobox Maya & Miguel episode

[edit] Template:Recentism

[edit] Template:Sports Figures in the 2000s

[edit] Template:Olympic Record

[edit] Template:Disinfo

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search