Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< July 6	July 8 >

1 July 7

[edit] July 7

[edit] Template:Pagan Symbols

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The term 'pagan' is biased, from a Christianity POV, and is derogatory to the beliefs held by those faiths who's symbols are represented. - the template suggests that the symbols included are minor and unimportant, clearly pejorative. Who defines a symbol/faith as being pagan? Seems like OR, and as such should be deleted. — Sfacets 22:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - While I have no problem with "Pagan" as a descriptor, I don't think all of the images included in the template can be accurately described as "Pagan symbols", nor do I think people of all the cultures in question would be comfortable with that descriptor. It's just not accurate enough across that wide a field, and lumps together too many diverse things under too simplistic and incomplete a banner. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- slight clarification: I have no problem with "Pagan" as a descriptor for *some* things (such as self-described Neopagan traditions), but I do have a problem with "Pagan" as a descriptor for all these symbols. The fact that I don't personally consider "Pagan" a pejorative doesn't matter - what matters is that the term is inaccurate, and offensive to some (many? most?) of the cultures being lumped together here. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a POV descriptor. Merriam Webster defines the term as, "1. Heathen a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome) 2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person". While some people do use it as a term of pride and self-identification (compare from nigga), its common-place meaning is still too loaded to throw it around as a label plastered through a template. Abecedare 04:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep I think there is a point in keeping these together, and I suspect we have a many more to add--I'm open to another name of course, for the objections made to the present one do seem reasonable. DGG (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep -- there isn't any more all-inclusive and broadly accepted term than "Pagan" that I've heard of. "Pagan" and "Heathen" may cross-reference each other in the dictionary, but they have different connotations. "Pagan" is used in neutral scholarship of the history of religions in the period of Late Antiquity (while "heathen" wouldn't be). The substantive side of the template needs work, of course... AnonMoos 06:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: As far as I know the term pagan is avoided even in modern scholarship (except when the term itself is the subject, or when referring to self-identified neo-pagan groups). Even if that had not been the case, I think the term is analogous to cult or fundamentalism which do have non-pejorative technical meanings, but are yet avoided on wikipedia except when they can be discussed in context.
- Terminology aside, I don't see any encyclopedic basis for clubbing Egyptian Ankh, Greek Caduceus, Indo-European Triple Goddess, Phoenician Tanit, and Japanese Torii (and until recently the Hindu Aum) except that they all happen to be non-Abrahamic symbols! Even ignoring the label, this categorization is innately POV, analogous to labeling another set of symbols as kaffir, a set of races as non-whites or a set of animals as non-cats. I apologize if my examples come across as inflammatory; I just couldn't think of better analogies at the moment.
- At best I see this categorization as a remnant of cultural/religious ignorance or perspective bias. That said, I certainly don't want to censor this information from wikipedia! I just think that it is better to deal with the topic in a article Pagan symbols which discusses the issue in context and detail, and lists symbols classified as pagan, along with attribution as to who did the listing. Abecedare 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, POV (and insulting.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Not only is the title POV, but the symbols have nothing in common. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. On the one hand, it shows how irrational (newer) religions are. On the other, it does not make sense to group those symbols in that category.--Svetovid 19:02, 14 July 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 section.

[edit] Template:Archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland

The result of the debate was delete. Sr 13 06:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The template is redundant. Barryob Vigeur de dessus 21:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

...with Template:British Isles. Delete. heqs ·:. 12:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete: unused and redundant to Template:British Isles. — mholland (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Thegodstemplate

The result of the debate was no consensus. IronGargoyle 01:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's straight out the Dept. of Redundancy department, as it's just an alias for class="wikitable". east.718 20:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

comment The creator insists that it looks different/better in his browser. Maybe he could comment as to what browser he uses etc? (it's actually a clone of an older version of {{prettytable}}) --Random832 02:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The only difference I see is that the font-size is set to 95% instead of 100%. east.718 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The origin's not all that relevant, but I'll note that there are revisions of prettytable with font-size set to 95%. The question, I think, is why this template's creator thinks this is necessary (i.e. why it "looks better" than wikitable, see here, other half) --Random832 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I didn't find any clause of the deletion policy that would clearly say to get rid of this. Take a look at the two pointers provided by Random832 above, the ones he calls 'here' and 'other half'. The examples do look different on my Safari browser, though you could argue one might be able to get the effect he desires in other ways. The potential replaceability of this template doesn't seem a strong enough reason to delete, though others may know of some history that applies to this situation. EdJohnston 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pokémon villains

The result of the debate was delete. matt br 15:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Contains only one working link, the other is a redirect and the third has been deleted. — Zxcvbnm 19:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's small enough and not terribly effective, so I'd say delete. But I do not agree the premise is cruft. Toastypk 03:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If you think it's cruft, WP:AFD is that-a-way. hbdragon88 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm deleting it because it's defunct. The only article there that works is "Pokemon Crime syndicates." So, delete it on that basis, not the "cruft" part, because that was taken care of.--Zxcvbnm 02:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 03:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mainpage

The result of the debate was Speedied under CSD G2 (test pages). howcheng {chat} 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be some sort of sandbox on the template namespace, apparently abandoned by its creator. Not used anywhere. Directly transcludes an article. --cesarb 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Awwwwww! er, delete, seems to be a test of sorts. Gracenotes^T § 17:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - editing test. --Haemo 06:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Miss America Teen state

The result of the debate was speedied - after the AFD, no need to drag this out. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Any blue links from this template have been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen, therefore this is no longer used/needed. Peter 13:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User WWE

The result of the debate was userfy all per userbox migration. TfD is not needed for this. IronGargoyle 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT disallows "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise". WP:Userbox says policies apply stringently to userboxes in main template space. This userbox should be deleted, just as many political and religious userboxes were deleted without notice. I would support its right to remain undeleted anywhere that political and religious userboxes are extended the same courtesy.-- Mike Serfas 12:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: I should also disclose that pending the reaction to this proposal, Template:User TNA, Template:User ECW, Template:User WWE3, Template:User Raw, Template:User SD!, Template:User ECW WWE, Template:User Hulk Hogan, Template:User HHH, Template:User Undertaker, Template:User SCSA, Template:User The Rock, Template:User DX, Template:Jeff Hardy (sic), Template:User Edge, Template:Rated-RKO and Template:Rated-RKO 2 (sic), and Template:User Cryme may be eligible for the same treatment. Template:User Raw and Template:User SD! additionally run afoul of Userbox style guidelines. Mike Serfas 13:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the template links in Mike Serfas comment above (the Template: part was missing, resulting in lots of redlinks) 84.145.211.250 13:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Too rushed to preview, too rushed to post -- Ancient Wiki proverb. Mike Serfas 14:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Userfy The default procedure for contested userboxes. 84.145.211.250 13:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Userfy. Nominator says above ("Just as many political and religious userboxes were deleted without notice", "remain undeleted anywhere that political and religious userboxes are extended the same courtesy") that this is just a WP:POINT nomination. However, the fact is that because of various people's various attitudes toward professional wrestling (and toward our own professional wrestling articles - the encyclopedia is what we're here for),these would do better to be in user space. As the IP above says, it is the default procedure for contested userboxes. -- Gavia immer (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be assured that this is not merely a WP:POINT. While it's true that I'd have like to have seen the Userboxes all undeleted, or all deleted, or all userfied, etc., the current situation puts Wikipedia in a bad light. I can readily picture a Christian news broadcast declaring (misleadingly) that on Wikipedia "you're allowed to say you believe in Hulk Hogan but not allowed to say you believe in Jesus". I also should say that I would see no clear problem under the current policy with a userbox that says "I like professional wrestling" - the problem is that these boxes advertise specific companies and products. (True, I'm not sure how you can draw the line between a person and a product in some of these cases - perhaps whether their name is trademarked? I'd hate to see the policy ban someone from saying that he likes Stephen Hawking... but trying to delimit content restrictions is never a fair process) Mike Serfas 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
GUS 'em. The nom is very slightly POINTy; it's a good-faith deletion nomination based on a standard he grudgingly accepts but would prefer to see reversed. That's okay, though; this is as good a place to discuss this as any, and the possibility for disruption is basically nil.
Anyhoo, ship these off to userspace per the German userbox solution. There's little potential for these to be useful for coordinating editing efforts (particularly the narrow ones like the RKO and Degeneration X boxes). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't see any reason to delete this, or why it is even nominated. There are userboxes for different religions, different political spectrums, different car brands, different sports teams, different TV shows etc... There's no reason this should be deleted. Jgera5 02:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Userfy, just like the userboxes about TV interests or many of the other sports userboxes -- Amazins490 (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Userfy per WP:SNOW. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 03:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Unreferenced episode

The result of the debate was Consensus to delete per redundancy and policy issues. Until (1 == 2) 05:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review has also been listed for deletion, this template is part of that "process". Matthew 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That MFD has been closed as keep. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It didn't actually close as keep. It closed as no consensus which defaulted as keep. IronGargoyle 05:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me open by stating this: an article is not obligated to use secondary sources. Secondary sources are indeed preferred, but primary sources are not outlawed, rather should be used with care.

This template basically forks the previous, sure it's different in style... but it was attempting to perform the function as the previous (which was deleted per TfD consensus).

I've actually removed the deadline part from the template per consensus established at the previous TfD, but that does not negate my above point that primary sources are not outlawed.

I've already seen abuse of this deletion template in its short lifetime, such as tagging to articles which cite a reliable secondary source (under the guise that the episode is non-notable, but ait, isn't this a sourcing template?) A television episode is simply notable for being watched by multiple millions of people, that's just the tip of the iceberg. We do not delete stub articles simply for being a stub, there's no deadline to create a full article. Matthew 11:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I believe this template should be speedily deleted per consensus established at previous TfD. Matthew 11:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete redundant with {{notability}} and {{unreferenced}} etc. Tim! 11:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Redundancy is not a reason to delete, nor is it a valid argument considering we make specific templates all the time for specific situations, such as this. -- Ned Scott 15:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Redunancy is always a valid reason to delete a template. If you're making lots of specific templates you're probably doing something wrong Ned. Tim! 09:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is a useful tool for dealing with the near-endless non-notable tv show episodes. A specific episode is not notable simply because millions sat slack jawed while it was shown - they sit through the adverts, too - want articles on them, too? --Jack Merridew 11:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per Matthew's reasoning. This template should clearly be deleted. --Angie Y. 11:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you believe the template should be deleted, why are you indiscriminately adding it to episodes that already have secondary sources? I suggest you please review the guidelines as WP:POINT. -- -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete, per Matthew's reasoning. I would also add that fact that somebody has published about something does not necessarily give it "real world" importance. Moreover, there are articles on television programs and film that have no secondary sources (other than links to Internet Database or TV.com).SonPraises (talk) (contributions) 13:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, re-creation of deleted material, goes against policy as secondary sources are not required. -N 14:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- There was no conesnous to delete the first template in the first place. The DRV made this clear as well, even if editors did not wish to overturn the decision. -- Ned Scott 15:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- This was developed with the previous TFD strongly in mind, and secondary sources are required. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Except, y'know, when they aren't, or when the guideline doesn't apply due to some other exception. Guideline != Policy. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep No consensus was established at the previous TfD. The extent of Matthew's disruption in this matter has gone too far. Again, this TfD is nothing more than those who wish to keep crappy episode articles crappy, without giving a fair notice to other editors to improve them and allow them to be saved from deletion. -- Ned Scott 15:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ned, consensus was indeed established (as the closing administrator demonstrated), you just do not wish to accept this. "Matthew's disruption in this matter has gone too far", please would you be kind enough to show where I've been disruptive? "[T]his TfD is nothing more than those who wish to keep crappy episode articles crappy", that is clearly your opinion -- it's quite clear not everybody believes there's a blanket definition that these articles are crappy. "[A]llow them to be saved from deletion", there you have it -- perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought your process wasn't for deletion?
- You need to realise, Ned, that not everybody shares your opinions on what type of articles an encyclopaedia should contain. Everybody has their own "cruft", even you. It's whether you chose to accept this and live with it or frantically try and get it deleted that counts -- I used to be a bit like you -- but I realised that other people's cruft was not going to destroy Wikipedia, and that it was beneficial to our readers. Matthew 15:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  - The extent of your bullshitting is disruptive as well. There was no consensus at the TFD, whatsoever. The deleting admin cited "instructions creep", anyways, so not even his reasons for deletion follow your own. You will not be welcome in these discussions if you continue to blatantly lie about them. This TfD in itself is a violation of WP:POINT. You tried to remove the 14 day counter again, got reverted[1], and so you decided to take the whole thing to deletion[2]. We don't delete things because "Matthew didn't get his way". -- Ned Scott 16:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    - And I should point out, this second template was the result of the DRV discussion, and specifically addresses most of objections found in the first template. -- Ned Scott 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Uh-huh, there's no need to be so uncivil. Ned, you'll notice a three minute difference between Ckat's revert and my TfD nomination... I was in the process of writing my TfD when Chris reverted me. Perhaps you should AGF? Heck, I had even told another user of my possible intentions to TfD this template. Matthew 16:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      - This second template was the result of a user, not a discussion. It addresses none of the objections, simply adding new colours doesn't change its purpose. Matthew 16:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        It addresses the misleading impression that the template advocated a deletion process and a time limit. And with you, Matthew, one can no longer assume good faith due to your actions. Your intentions are transparent and your logic is so flawed that it's funny. Your definitions of things like consensus and notability have been rejected over and over. -- Ned Scott 16:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Nedd it's a bit rich to accuse Matthew of disruption when you yourself have canvassed various of your tv-review buddies to come "vote" in this TFD: [3], [4] Tim! 10:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        Tim, I'm trying to tell everyone who comments on the TFD about the MFD, and vice versa. At the time of those messages, 3 people from the MfD had not commented on the TfD. Considering these two XfDs go hand in hand, and it goes without saying that someone who is interested in one is likely to be interested in the other. I think The JPS and Everyking have commented since then, and have not commented on both XfDs, and I would have no problem contacting them as well. In fact, I'm helping Everyking re-review the episode articles he worked on to help generate a better consensus. -- Ned Scott 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Change content to "{{tl|unreferenced|episode}}{{tl|notability|episode}}" per Tim! - while redundancy is not a criteria for deletion, neither is abuse of the template - and it isn't a cutpaste of the original as, as far as I can see, the 14 day limit has gone (the main source of the problem). Will ^(talk) 16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- The 14 day thing was never meant to be a time limit, but a tracking method. Abuse of the template is a reason to address those abusing the template, not a reason to delete it or remove the review categorization and tracking. -- Ned Scott 16:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  - To be honest, I'd rather it be kept - but in controversial debates such as these you need to think about the other side - and a compromise using both templates seems wise, in my opinion. Will ^(talk) 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Compromise is not always the best solution. A ton of editors have gotten used to episode articles for all episodes, just as tons of users had gotten used to non-free images without fair use rationales. When we started tagging thousands of images, a lot of people were upset, but we didn't stop tagging, because it was something we had to do. The objection is nothing more than a short term growing pain, as we correct a problem that should have been fixed long ago. We don't compromise with the WP:ILIKEIT logic. -- Ned Scott 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      - However, if we can merge the templates and retain the review functions, I would not object to that. But it would likely make for a bulky single template that just makes life harder for those who maintain them. The old template has already been merged to {{notability}} via {{notability|episode}}, in message and even deletion suggestion, but minus the review functions. -- Ned Scott 17:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Good job notifying me of this, Matthew, or mentioning your issues on any talk page anywhere.
Keep this. This was made to be a replacement for the ill-fated and ill-planned {{Dated episode notability}}, and replaces it in its role as a tag for articles that fail to cite any secondary sources. (In fact, it was made after discussion with Matthew himself, and I'm pretty pissed that he didn't object before I wasted my time trying to help him out.) The existance of sufficient secondary sources with which to make a standalone article is the current notability standard at WP:EPISODE, and if someone is using this template on an article that does have proper secondary sources, feel free to just remove it.
The category Matthew is complaining about has been retained from the old template for discussion purposes at WP:TV-REVIEW, a proposed process for cleaning up or merging episode articles. (I made a point of cropping the category description down to "This will be used in such-and-such proposed process.") If Matthew has a problem with WP:TV-REVIEW, he needs to take it up on the talk page of that proposal instead of trying to delete cleanup tools. I note that, while he has given us two scaremongering TFDs and an MFD now, he has failed to yet actually comment on that talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I appreciate the desire here, but there's really no need for a separate template, when other templates such as {{unref}} and {{primarysources}} do the job just fine. --El on ka 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The particular template is needed because of the sheer number of articles that have this specific problem, as well as the need to categorize them if WP:TV-REVIEW is successful. Category:Articles lacking reliable references, for example, is a wasteland, with with many articles having been tagged for over a year. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the above. Useful tool, clearly. Eusebeus 23:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete We have not seen the last of the controversy about how to handle these matters, and this template reflects the views of a small group. I agree generally with their principles, but I deplore the results that over zealous application is giving, for they are removing content en masse with a very limited consensus. DGG (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- DGG, I can't stress this enough, these tags were never meant to be used like this. They were never meant to be added in mass without the tagger looking at the articles and doing some initial evaluation. Abuse of the tool should be addressed, deleting the tool because one user over did it is not a good thing, and just screws everyone else over. The discussions themselves are now being held on individual "list of episodes" articles, instead of a centralized area, and these tags are a way to help more people collaborate with the process. By deleting these templates you are only making that small group stay small. A new idea will always start small, but on Wikipedia things like that grow extremely fast. If you snipe the process before it has a change to get off the ground, then people won't be able to find it. The first template was nominated for deletion before a single episode article even got reviewed. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I was asked to comment here, so I will: Please be civil and avoid personal attacks. I'm not mentioning any names. If the shoe fits . . . -- But|seriously|folks 06:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good advice, but I was hoping you'd tell us what you think about the template. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I was disappointed at the tone of this discussion. In any event . . .

Keep. It's useful in identifying pages to be discussed at Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review. It's not redundant because the similar templates won't sort the same way. We're not bound by the result of the previous TfD because it's different. Deleting a template because of abuse is throwing the baby out with the bathwater (assuming it has a valid use). And both WP:N and WP:EPISODE require independent sources to satisfy the notability requirement. Millions of people watching something does not make it notable, but it only takes a couple of reliable sources discussing it significantly to do so. My US$.02 has been deposited. -- But|seriously|folks 06:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep This doesn't even mention a "deadline". This was created as a compromise from the other compromise. It got rid of everything people were complaining about, it's merely an episode specific version of the references tag. Matthew, if you have such a problem with the guidelines and such, for heaven's sake, stop being so pointy and XfD'ing everything related to it. Discuss the actual guideline, which you have been invited to do many times, but have not deigned to join us. I can't even believe this is being considered. When will people be happy? TTN redirects buches of articles. People got mad. A solution was discussed, and implemented. People got mad at the template, it was deleted. The guidelines were implemented, people got mad, it was nomiated for deletion. A replacement for the deleted template was made. And now it's up for deletion. Stop trying to delete every solution created, instead, make one of your own. This isn't only directed towards Matthew, but it is primarily, as he is the one spearheading this effort. I ^{(said) (did)} 09:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep per all of the above rationales. It is a useful clean up tool with it's own specific purpose. Because it's specific should not be a reason to delete it. Seraphim ^Whipp 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Redundant with {{unreferenced}}. This is just a sneaky way of getting around the previous deletion. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out here that, ironically enough, the people who defended the previous template were not the ones who created this. It was created by someone who opposed the previous one, out of a compromise from the previous TfD. The only edit by a supporter of the previous template on this one was this one, and it was only a minor change, that made the wording more informative. I ^{(said) (did)} 20:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:I is right. If you check Matthew's talk page you also see Matthew giving his OK on the new template. Then he turns around and TfDs it. I made most of the old template, and I had no hand in the new template. -- Ned Scott 21:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Tim! and The JPS, it is just not needed--Sugarcubez 05:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete the regular maintenance templates are enough. There does not have to be every sort of unreferenced template as there is with the stubs. Time could be better spent in other areas. - Gilliam 23:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is being used for a specific purpose, however. It would be impossible to use the general templates for this, as this template includes a dated functionality that allows for the intersection of three different qualities. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dating the template was specifically rejected in the last tfd. Replacing it with another dated template does not work. -N 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the idea that it had fourteen days to assert notability until it was to be discussed was what was rejected. I ^{(said) (did)} 00:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Just a reminder that my previous closure was in good faith (I stand by it, and the DRV endorsed it). I have no opinion here and I urge everyone to avoid climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Thanks, IronGargoyle 08:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, there was no consensus either way on the deletion discussion. It was 12 keep, 19 delete, and 1 neutral. There was a majority, but 59% is not consensus. I would also like to point out that, according to the TfD page, the template was not even allowed to be nominated for deletion. If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place. Therefore, the closing was not correct. The DRV was closed because a compromise was reached, which was this template. Ironically enough, no one who defended the previous template had any hand in the creation. The only edit by a supporter was this one by TTN, and it was only to make the wording more clear. I ^{(said) (did)} 09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletoids (The Curiously Strong Delete) - First off, let's examine the "time-delay auto-vigilante-AfD nomination" functionality of the template: it is, singlehandedly, the most offensively small-minded and just plain offensive thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia, ever. It's intellectual extortion, the template way of saying "this is a nice article, be a shame if someone went and deleted it." Automatically adding it to a quasi-AfD process is just the kicker, especially because this template "feature" would have been removed immediately if it automatically added the article to the real AfD list. Nominating an article for permanent removal should never be automated. Now on top of that we have the template's effective promotion of WP:N from guideline to policy: it gives the distinct and unmistakable impression that if an episode article does not have secondary sources, it should be immediately deleted. Numerous documents provide exceptions to this rule specifically for episode articles, including WP:WAF, WP:FICT, and WP:N itself. A good example of this kind of exception would be the myriad of Doctor Who episode articles: one exists for every Doctor Who plot, but very few of them use secondary sources. This is because the sheer degree of notability the program itself possesses propigates to each individual episode; in essence, the show is so notable that it's notability is inherited. I'm not saying every TV show has this quality -- in fact very few do -- but this template is written based on an interpretation of WP:N that does not allow for such quality, an interpretation which is very clearly wrong. Numerous other types of exceptions to the non-existant "we need secondary sources" rule exist, but the template allows for none of them. In short, this template seeks to elevate WP:N to a status it does not deserve, and it's redundant to boot. There's no reason why editors concerned about the lack of secondary sources in an episode article cannot use the existing {{notability}} or {{unreferenced}} templates. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. - I'd also like to suggest that {{primarysourcesepisode}} be added to this TfD, as it's basically the same thing without the "auto-vigilante-AfD" functionality. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Delete both per nom and yukichigai. heqs ·:. 12:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note that deltoid is already a word. But deletoid is not, if you need a replacement. --WikidSmaht (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - D'oh, I forgot an "e". I shall fix it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- From your own comments, you clearly do not understand the situation at all. The discussions for redirecting or merging are based on the community, just like any other discussion regarding a group of articles. Those discussions reflect consensus, and help us improve the articles on Wikipedia by getting rid of inappropriate articles. You can never XfD such a concept as that, and this template is simply a way of tracking those discussions. -- Ned Scott 01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Normal discussions are based on consensus, yes. This proposed process would have effectively legitimised canvassing for votes/input from the WP:EPISODE project page by making it automated. That's not consensus, that's mob rule. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And how would it have done that? Other than notifying the parent pages of the articles being reviewed that a review is taking place, no one else would've been informed. That was what started this entire debacle, no one being informed. I ^{(said) (did)} 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

From the template use text: After 14 days the template will add the article to Category:Episode articles not asserting notability, for review in the proposed process at WP:TV-REVIEW. Automatically adding an article to a specialized sub-category that is explicitly identified and linked to at WP:TV-REVIEW would seem to inform a lot more pages (and people) than just the parent pages. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, canvassing is the active recruiting of votes, with an emphasis on informing only those who agree with you, not adding something to a category where many people on both sides of the debate must consciously seek out to see. I ^{(said) (did)} 07:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing is usually indicated by active recruitment for votes, but specialized categories can be (and have been) used to accomplish the same thing, albeit not quite as effectively. When you have a project page that says (paraphrasing) "every article in CATEGORY is broken and you should vote on what to do about it" (and it's not part of some official WP process, e.g. XfD) it's definitely canvassing. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:CANVASS defines it as overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial. So there we go on that. No mention of a category. It is not cavassing. It's merely a collection of articles that needed to be discussed. I ^{(said) (did)} 09:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Read a little closer, specifically the quote from the ArbCom discussion that resulted in the policy being made: "Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." It may be passive contact, but you are still contacting a large group of people who do not normally edit the article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, passive contact is not the same thing as canvassing, since to be cavnassing it really needs to be active campaigning. Wouldn't it also make the XfD discussions cavassing as well, since there's a nice big tag placed on the article, with a link to the discussion. This tag, however, does not mention a review of any sort. It doesn't even mention a category. The description on the template page does, but the template itself does not. I ^{(said) (did)} 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yukichigai, this sounds more like a WP:OWN reaction, rather than a canvassing issue. People who were around on the talk page of WP:EPISODE are all editors involved with TV articles, and have an interest in TV articles. We normally edit these kinds of articles all the time, and most often we know the subject of the articles as well. Those of us who are trying to get the review process off the ground are just as apart of the episode articles as anyone else is. If you want to make the absurd argument that such editors shouldn't have a say, because they haven't taken the time to make at least one edit to each episode article, then yeah, you need to read WP:OWN. -- Ned Scott 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:OWN; red herring. This has everything to do with WP:CANVASS, because you are still recruiting significant numbers of editors who likely do not edit articles on the topic in question. (experience with a type of article is irrelevant for the purposes of WP:CANVASS) On top of that it's a biased notification, a distinct no-no as far as WP:CANVASS is concerned; WP:TV-REVIEW does not just say "these articles need to be discussed," it says "these articles probably need to be merged, and that needs to be discussed." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats the point. There should be outside opnions on whether or not these articles should exist. You want us to limit it to people who care? Well, thats inherently wrong with a wiki. There needs to be people who dont have an opinion on the topic one way or the other. The template itself only talks about it being discussed, and the template is what is being discussed here. Not the process. I ^{(said) (did)} 06:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The template and the process are interlinked, and what's said on the process page is part of what's wrong with the template. The point of all this is that it automatically canvasses in a biased manner; the process page is just part of the how. As to the outside opinion thing, again, it comes down to whether or not you're canvassing for those outside opinions. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, looking at the template, it is not baised at all. It just says that the article does not cite sources. The template itself says nothing about the discussion. At all. You would have to actively search for the template namespace for this, and follow links from there. That is not canvassing. We are not actively recruiting anything. The template is being used for two purposes: to show readers and editors of the page that it does not meet guidelines. And after fourteen days, editors who want to discuss it furthur can do so via a function of the template. The template never gives any indication that a review is taking place. Granted there is a suggestion on the template about merging it, and I, with interest to the uproar when that happened, would advocate removing it. I ^{(said) (did)} 07:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per concerns raised in previous TFD by myself (same IP). Existing policies and guidelines apply that make this template and the process it's connected to excessive. 71.50.132.243 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing in guidelines and policy that support what you just said. -- Ned Scott 01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - WP:BURO springs to mind. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Having some structure doesn't mean you get to cite WP:NOT#BURO. The process is nothing more than "start discussion at here" with advice on who to notify and how to handle the situation. Having a template to help us keep track of thousands of articles is a useful tool, not a bureaucracy. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Ned, I'm saying that the policies that this template rely on are such that they don't need a new template. WP:N, WP:V, unreferenced templates, etc.. Having a new template when all these exist already is excessive and unnecessary. Like I said, I made lots of points in the previous TFD which are unchanged for this one. 71.50.132.243 13:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Obviously what already exists is not enough to deal with the problem, or we wouldn't be having a massively growing number of non-notable episode articles. Making a template for a specific cleanup process is no where near excessive, and is totally appropriate. We do this all the time for other clean up tags and issues, but this one is being singled out because some people don't like the result. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I would urge that "Delete because I want to undercut WP:TV-REVIEW" rationales not be considered when closing this discussion. Using TFD to force a debate on the value of a process or guideline is a misuse of TFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please disregard AMIB's red herring - WP:TV-REVIEW is already being evaluated at MfD. You can't use this TfD to "force a debate on the value of a process" because the debate has already been initiated elsewhere. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - It's not a red herring at all. If the main page is deleted at MFD (which seems unlikely, looking at the MFD at this point), then by all means dispose of this as well. No reason to even go to TFD. Likewise if it's rejected. Deleting a tool essential to the execution of a guideline, though, particularly on the say-so of people who were frustrated in their effort to get that guideline deleted or rejected, is just plain wrongheaded.
    Bear in mind, were the situation reversed (WP:TV-REVIEW was deleted or rejected and people were fighting to keep its implementation tools to go ahead and do it anyway) then I'd be arguing the reverse position.
    I made this template to fill the need of a proposed process whose previous sucky-ass template was deleted. It's frustrating to see many of the arguments made in the last TFD repeated without any regard for the efforts I made to address them, and it makes me think that people either misunderstand the role of TFD (which I believe you have, where you argue passionately that the process behind this template is flawed) or don't care (which isn't assuming good faith, so I prefer to think that it's the former). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    - My main argument with all of this is that a template should not be a process in and of itself. That is what I find most offensive about this template. (Though there are plenty of other things which make me think it should be deleted sooner rather than later) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      - You are protesting that after a fixed period of time this template puts articles in a category where if a proposed process is accepted people might begin a discussion that may lead to merging those articles if appropriate sources aren't found, as far as I can tell. That seems to me to be an opposition of WP:TV-REVIEW, since there's (I would hope!) no real problem with this template categorizing articles other than that.
        I note a lack of comment on your part at the talk page of the process proposal, the traditional place to comment on the rightness or wrongness of a proposal. Instead, I note a lot of opposition on deletion pages, when traditional practice is not to delete unsuccessful proposals, but to tag them as a record of what didn't work. The fact that Matthew, Angie Y., and you have failed to comment on the talk page, but instead have all commented at length on deletion pages, indicates to me a misunderstanding of this basic principle. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        That would be because I honestly feel the process is so fundamentally broken and unnecessary that it cannot be salvaged. There's nothing I can say on the talk page which would not be better placed in the MfD discussion. And yes, I am protesting the automated placement of the article into a category. That's a process in and of itself, and it's exactly the kind of mindless automation that we don't need on Wikipedia. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
        
        It's not automated, a person has to add the template, which is the same as adding it to a category. Almost all of our cleanup tags use categories. The original reason there was a 14 day delay on the category was so that people could make easy fixes, remove the template, and avoid the review since it wouldn't be needed. By deleting this template we don't have such an option anymore, and the category would be added the moment the template is added. You are protesting the option of easy fixes before a semi-formal review, do you not see how absurd that is. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Seriously, we've got pages for movies maybe two people have seen and we're keeping those but not pages about Futurama? Seriously. -- Legolas1987 9:38, July 14th 2007
- The consensus for not having episode articles for each episode was already established at WP:EPISODE. This is a discussion regarding a template, and is not a debate for TV episode articles. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Basically recreation of Template:Dated episode notability and redundant to Template:Notability.H^t/c 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- The categorization is the only thing similar between the two templates, which are very different. The last TfD, which was improperly closed and clearly did not hold a consensus, means that even if it was a recreation, that doesn't mean anything. Besides that, notability is it's own issue from having proper sources. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Acctually, there was a consensus at the previous tfd. Also, wasn't the reason the first template was nominated in the first place was because of the categorization thing?H^t/c 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Well, others disagree that there was consensus. It was nominated because the nom disliked the process, and wanted to get rid of it. People wanted it deleted because of the "deadline". I ^{(said) (did)} 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Not having a number of secondary sources does not automatically render a television episode "not notable" in my opinion. Unlike films, which are fairly easy to find numerous reviews and the like for, television episodes are usually not so lucky. This is especially true of older television programs. -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well exactly. If it doesn't have another source discussing it, then it't not notable. I ^{(said) (did)} 04:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia in the last few months, in large part because of my frustration at Wikipedia's metastasizing bureaucracy. This template (and the process affiliated with it) seems to me to be a prime example of this problem. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. It's a redundant template. --Piemanmoo 04:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, it has more information rather than a simple summary. --User:Wikiviewer 03:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? What does that mean? Your comment is not quite clear.H^t/c 23:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:28 08

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G2. Non-admin closure. Carlosguitar 13:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Template consists only of "28 August", and is only used once, on User:Guz. Delete Mike Peel 10:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Albedo

The result of the debate was speedily userfied --Random832 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User signature template. Unused on any wikipedia page. This isn't the way to create a custom signature - and it seems to be forbidden by Wikipedia:Signatures (although that possibly only applies if the template is not substituted?). Either way, Userfy or delete. Mike Peel 09:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as a violation of WP:SIG, but be sure to notify the creator so he doesn't get confused and simply recreate it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As per prior comments. SlamDiego_←T 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - clear violation of WP:SIG; it's not supposed to be in template space, whether he substs or transcls it. --Haemo 06:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Userfied - someone speedy delete the redirect. please --Random832 23:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ArbComElection

The result of the debate was subst and delete. IronGargoyle 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Advert for the Arbitration Committee Elections at the end of 2004. It's been two and a half years since then; I think it's about time this template was subst'd and deleted. Mike Peel 06:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete if it's not going to be updated and reused for future elections. Judging by the lack of updates (nothing from October 2004 to July 2007), and the current method of using text in the sitenotice, it isn't likely to be useful. -- Gavia immer (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcomispacefy -N 14:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what subst'ing it would do. -- Ned Scott 16:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No, substing it would delete the template. I think the template should be moved to wp:arbcom space. -N 16:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

subst and delete lack of update, seems to be dead. Carlosguitar 16:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Taginfo

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SELF. — Span632 04:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep I don't see how it is self-referential. It directs readers to tags which have been relocated from the top of the page to the bottom for greater reader ease of use and clarity of article presentation. It says "if you want information about this, look here", and is therefore no more self-referential than something in an article that says "see above" or "see (Name Of Section)". It's a pointer, and as such in itself has no content whatsoever concerning the subjects that the relocated tags cover.

I also note that in any event, even if it was self-referential, some amount of self-reference is permissable in the Template namespace, as per WP:ASR#In_the_Template_and_Category_namespaces.

And finally, I think it's relevant that the nominator's account seems to have been created expressly to nominate this template for deletion, since those are the only contributions listed in their log.

Discussion about the underlying issues this template was created to help deal with -- the proliferation of tags and the desireability of their being relocated to the bottom of pages -- can be found here, here and here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 09:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Tags go at the beginning of the article, or at the beginning of a section. They do so for a reason: they are supposed to be noticed before the content they refer to. Any template designed to assist in breaking this standard practice should be deleted. -- Gavia immer (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is no need to have a sleek, tiny tag to unclutter the top of an article. This template does not seem to serve any other useful purpose. In fact, I feel it does a disservice. Cleanup tags are placed on an article not just as a homing signal for improving editors, but as a service to those who are to read the article. IMHO, tags should be at the top of the page, should be slightly big & bulky, and should slightly interrupt the user's flow through the page. This is what we in the biz call an "alert". By what reason do we want to sweep these tags under the rug? Any problem with the reason (or lack of reason) behind actually tagging an article should be in a policy discussion. Let's not create unneeded workarounds. - BierHerr | Bier holen gehen 19:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment What if the pointer was somewhat bigger, and said something stronger? Is there a wording that would meet your approval, that would be strong enough to attract people's attention without the page being disfigured? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply In short: no. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. You seem to propose something that is different but not, in my opinion, better. If I understand your argument, it has two components: 1. An aesthetic dislike with the size and position of this "clutter" and 2. A policy disagreement with the way people tag articles "haphazardly" without explaining why the tag is warranted. To #1 I would say I don't see a need for change, and it won't improve #2, and to #2 I would say, let's have that policy discussion elsewhere, but let's not create workarounds that seek to achieve something similar in a different fashion (because I don't think it will achieve the goal). #2 needs to be addressed directly through action (e.g. editing, removing unnecessary tags, improving the stated tagging policy), not by pixel pushing. - BierHerr | Bier holen gehen 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. These cleanup, dispute, whatever tags should be what we in the biz call in your face. Sadly, too many people won't allow themselves to be directed to the bottom of an article before reading it. WODUP 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment One of the problems with the current use of tags is their endemic overuse, and the fact that, since there's no strong control process in place to regulate their use, any editor can slap a tag on an article without there having been any discussion of it, or even a mention on the talk page. That means that, currently, tags cannot be trusted to be in any way authoritative, and that means that being "in your face" is not justified. If readers could trust that the warnings had a strong basis, that would be another thing entirely (although I'd still say that the number of tags at the top should be limited for the ease of use of the reader) and tags would have justification for arresting attention, but in the current system that's not the case -- in the vast majority of cases, tags are simply one editor's personal opinion about an article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep The reason given for the deletion is absurd, and I see that nobody is defending it; instead people are arguing for deletion because they don't like the use that it's being put to. That's not a valid ground for deletion. The use doesn't violate any policy that I'm aware of; it's not a common style right now, but who's to say that it's not a better style, and one that will become common as people see it. If you don't like it don't use it; if you really don't like it, try to achieve a consensus on banning it, but don't do it through the back door by deleting a template that some editors consider useful. Zsero 01:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Gavia immer has it in one. The tags need to be at the top. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia will have content-related problem tags so long as anyone can edit it. I have not identified any compelling arguments to move tags from the top of an article to the bottom, and regard the system introduced by this template as unneeded. (Believe me, Occam's razor has been used as a basic rationale for deleting templates time and time again.) As for the overuse of such tags: wiki software in general only works if we assume that 1. the user committing a revision knows what he/she is doing and 2. the user committing a revision is doing so in good faith. While these premises are not always true, assuming them of a person adding a content-related problem tag can simplify the situation and allow excessive tags to be removed on a case-by-case basis. In the same way, vandalism is handled not by restricting everybody from editing, but by reverting it when it is found. Gracenotes^T § 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Sure, the presumption of good intentions is a valuable part of what makes Wikipedia work, but if you take a close look at the tagging situation, I think it's clear (certainly it is to me) that tags are being used very, very casually, and that, in fact, a significant number of editors spend much more time tagging articles than editing them to correct perceived problems. Now, whether you consider that this epidemic of tagging is deliberate vandalism ("opinion grafitti") or just loose discipline, it's certainly devalued tags signficantly, and I think something serious needs to be done about that.

It's easy enough to say that I should take the time to minutely examine every article with a tag on it to check to see whether it's justified or not, and then remove those that aren't, but that doesn't take into account that the epidemic of tagging has made the project of checking every detail of them prohibitively time-consuming.

I edit articles, or pieces of articles, as I find things wrong with them, and that means that I don't always go all the way through the article, just to the parts that I'm interested in. To do what's been suggested, I'd have to spend most of my Wikipedia time not reading articles (as a user) or correcting problems (as an editor) but checking through the validity of tags.

Shouldn't the onus be on the tagger to prove their case, not on me to prove them wrong? They are making an accusation about an article, that it's badly sourced, or biased, or in need of clean-up, or whatever, they are expressing an opinion or POV about it, shouldn't they be forced to justify it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There will always be some "wiggle room" in the application and removal of such notices. The kind of rigidity you're looking for is anti-wiki. You have to confront edits you disagree with on a case by case basis just like everything else here. heqs ·:. 11:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Gracenotes, and the extensive discussion on WP:ANI. Haemo 06:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Gracenotes -- as well, if a tag is unwarrented and there is no discussion about it on a pages talk page, then the tag itself should be deleted with the comment (no discussion on the talk page) or something like that. If it is just shuffled to the bottom of the page, people will pay less attention to it. It also seems to violate this part of WP:Self."Put simply, this policy is about remembering that the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, not merely to perpetuate itself, so the articles produced should be useful even outside the context of the project used to create them." This template is concerned with Wikipedia as a source. However, the goal of a wikipedia article and template should be to create a trustworthy article, not to make wikipedia trustworthy. These tags show readers (who are also editors or potential editors) that the article is not up to par, and gives them an opportunity to help in creating the article. Wikipedia needs to encourage readers to participate without worry to its reputation -- being honest in its limitations does, in fact, enhance its reputation, in any case. XinJeisan 06:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete and use Template:Articleissues instead. heqs ·:. 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was unaware of Template:Articleissues, and I think it's another interesting attempt to bring same sanity to the tagging situation, but the long list of tags that's supported by it raises the possibility of having the top part of an article consist primarily of tag information without any content which (as I've been saying all along) that's not terribly user-friendly. When I crack open an encyclopedia, even an in-process always-in-the-midst-of-being-edited online encyclopedia, I'm looking for some pertinent information about the subject, and don't want to be distracted by a lot of what amounts to housecleaning notes. Given the long list of things that can be wrong with an article that Template:Articleissues supports, I think it raises the legitimate question of whether this information shouldn't be an integral part of the article structure, like categories, instead of something added on to the article on an ad hoc basis. Has that possibility ever been discussed? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the tags-at-top-of-article issue has been discussed ad nauseam. See User:Shanes/Why tags are evil and stay tuned for my essay regarding "template creep". heqs ·:. 11:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Gavia immer, BierHerr and Gracenotes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete; confusing for new users, doesn't make clear what tags are (the wording and context initially made me think of a Web 2.0 style tag (metadata)). Laïka 10:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the above, especially Gracenotes. Aesthetics does not and should not play a role in articles that need clean-up. If an article is not referenced or if a plot summary is too long or if an article contains a trivia section, placing an appropriate template is not POV, it's common sense. If anyone has issues with OR or POV allegations on an article, that is why talk pages exist. Templates serve multiple purposes, and one of them is attention via visibility. If we put a "discrete" warning at the top, and move the templates to the bottom of the article, that visibility and immediacy is lost. María (críticame) 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think the rejection of "aesthetics" as a criteria is rather short-sighted. "Aesthetics" doesn't mean prettifying or gussing-up an article with gratuitous design elements, aesthetics in this context means making the encyclopedia more accessible and functional for the user. One of the primary concerns of periodical and book designers everywhere is to make certain that the reader can easily get to and take in the material you're presenting (or else why are you presenting it?) and isn't put off by unnecessary or distracting elements. I firmly believe, despite the current status quo, that the proliferation of tags at the top of articles is both unnecessary and distracting, and that moving them to the bottom, with a pointer to them at the top, allows the reader to get into the article without obstructions and preserves the tag information for those interested in it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

More Comment I'd say the majority of WikiPedia is still a work in process: constantly being edited, improved, and hopefully brought to Featured Article status. "Distracting" is not always a bad thing. If your house is undergoing construction, and the back deck is not built yet, it is highly "user friendly" to place a conspicuous sign at the back door saying WARNING. Now, when your house is complete, you remove that tag as it is no longer needed. (How many Emergency Exit signs does one see that blend in nicely with the chosen decor of an office building?) Do you want a user accessing, unobstructed, an article that has flaws? Shouldn't they be sure to be aware of potential deficiencies? I feel I repeat myself (and others)... - BierHerr | Bier holen gehen 17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, this kind of template tandem that bounces the editor (and reader) from one end of an article to the other creates a jarring step in process and is an example of "template creep" (essay just posted)/instruction creep. I think that if there are more than one or two tags at the top of an article they should be wrapped in a template like {{Articleissues}} (regretably itself a form of template creep) and ideally, collapsed by default. heqs ·:. 21:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Tags are generally warnings about the content of the article and should be seen by readers at the top of the article. When you're driving down the road and enter a construction area, you don't drive through the area and then see "Construction Zone", you see it before you enter the zone so you know that you need to be more careful. Arguments that tags get in the way of the article are misdirected ... tags should get in the way -- they provide the reader with useful information and they also trigger Wikipedians to make the necessary improvements so that the tags can be deleted. Excellent articles don't have tags, and that is what we should all be striving for. Truthanado 15:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Summary: Wikipedia is perfect, everything works exactly as it should, the current status quo is just peachy, thank you for your concern. Got it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the point is that the information that wikipedia is not perfect by a long shot, and these tags are the way to show everyone that it isn't, but that is just my opinion, so I could be wrong ... XinJeisan 06:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)