Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep until. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Contains Japanese text (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Previously sent to TfD with a result of no consensus, the template came up again in WikiProject Anime and manga. The consensus there was to no use the template on anime and manga related articles because it was redundant to {{Nihongo}}. The discussion was then moved to WikiProject Japan which came to a similar consensus.

Since neither WikiProjects support the usage of this template. I recommend that it be orphaned and deleted. --Farix (Talk) 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine, but when is a template going to be created to make Template:Contains Chinese text and Template:Contains Korean text redundant? It seems odd that Japanese is the only Asian language to have a template like Template:Nihongo.--SeizureDog (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whenever someone gets around to creating {{Hangul}} and {{Hanzi}}, I suspect. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• The problem with Korean and Chinese isn't a lack of templates (of which there are plenty), but a lack of help pages equivalent to Help:Japanese. In any case, {{Contains Korean text}} is seldom used anyway. PC78 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's always Help:Multilingual support (East Asian).... —Quasirandom (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that the main discussion for "similar consensus" has been going on here. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• By all means delete if the Japan project has agreed to dispense with this template. PC78 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep until the involved projects can demonstrate that this template is unneeded (ie, by ensuring it is not employed in the mainspace). My understanding is that this template serves as a warning that Japanese text may not display correctly if it is not encapsulated in {{nihongo}} or similar. If all text on a page is encapsulated in templates like this, the template is redundant on that page. Once the projects have worked through all the articles containing this template, confirmed that all potentially troublesome text has been encapsulated, and removed the redundant templates, of course it may be deleted. Happy‑melon 15:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Do what Happy-melon just said. If we're going to delete this warning about possible breakage, we'd better be sure there's no breakage left over that will now not have a warning. Once that's done, deleting is fine, because {{nihongo}} links to a page with a similar warning. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, As Happy Melon described. I agree that it's redundant to Nihongo but there are some cases where Japanese text is used that can't be nicely formatted with that template. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Happy Melon. Someone with a browser that cannot display Kanji might end up seeing only gobbledygook and not be able to figure out why, and warning about that possibility is the very purpose of that template. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  For clarification, are you requesting that it instead be added to every article with kanji/kana text? —Quasirandom (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not a priority, of course, but yes. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Pardon me while I wince. Um, I should probably point out that the consensus discussion that prompted this nomination was that this template isn't needed, because the Nihongo template has a link to the same help, and it's right at the kanji/kana instead of elsewhere in the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Here is an article where this template is definitely appropriate. As it wasn't there, I added it. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Better would be to apply Nihongo to all the Japanese text.... —Quasirandom (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Prod-2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I really can't see the purpose of this template. PROD is not meant to be a discussion, or a vote; the fact that two editors have agreed that an article deserves deletion doesn't make the case for deletion under PROD any stronger. If anyone objects to the proposed deletion, then the PROD template should be removed, regardless of how many people support it; and if they don't, it's up to the admin to make the final deletion decision based on policy, not on how many people support deletion. I'm actually tempted to speedy this under WP:CSD#T2, but thought I'd list it here instead to see what other people think. - Terraxos (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - for the reasons outlined by nom. Green Giant (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I wouldn't want to speedy it myself under WP:CSD#T2, it's a bit controversial. But delete per nom. Happy‑melon 10:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: This is not a speedy deletion candidate as described, in my opinion, as it is not necessarily without controversy (the template is used a lot). However, there is no real reason for the template's existence, it does obfuscate the process, and it tends to discourage talk-page input (all undesirable). As for 'prod not meant to be a discussion', one should never discourage discussion - there is too little of it on many articles as it is, which leads to misinterpretation of consensus due to lack of a quorum and rankles all around (how many times have you seen 'but ... nobody told me it was going to be deleted' - lots). If discussion takes place, it should appear on the article's talk page, not as a string of prod-2 templates (I've seen them stacked in a form of pseudo-discussion before). The prod-template does direct people to the talk page, which is sufficient. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't agree on grounds for speedy, but this is a pointless template. Doczilla (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - This template could be used as an additional detail, that it isn't just a single person who feels the article should be deleted. However, most of people who agree with a proposed deletion won't be doing anything with it, hence making this template not widely useful. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete People shouldn't have to think twice about contesting a PROD because of a template. –Pomte 16:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep, especially when this is used with a comment. (In fact, can a comment be required?) I work on prod deletions quite a bit, and I run across a number of prods with weak (or worse, no) reason. When someone adds additional information with the prod-2 template, it's enormously helpful to me. Otherwise I have to do the research myself, or shrug my shoulders and send it to AfD as a procedural nom. --Fabrictramp (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question: Is not placing information on the Talk page sufficient? Also, if there is no reason provided for a PROD, I will sometimes simply remove the PROD and have done with it if the article is not clearly a WP:SNOW candidate for deletion but not speedy-able. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply The advantage of the prod-2 template is that the information is all in one place. So many talk pages are full of banners and other clutter, and rarely have any actual talk -- it's easier to see a nice summary of the reasoning all in one place. (Otherwise, why even have a reason in the prod template itself?) As far as the no-reason prods, I hesitate to simply remove them because that means the only option left is AfD. I'd rather take the time and see if I agree with a need for deletion than to clog up AfD more. (And if I have time, I also drop the editor who requested the prod a friendly note explaining why having a reason is helpful.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep I find it extremely useful, both when I place it and when I see it. I place it on articles in my subject where I want to make clear that I confirm the reasoning of the prodder--the intent is to aid the deleting admin--deletion at the expiration of a prod is not and should not be automatic, and also to give some information to anyone who might wish to remove the prod, including the author. Among the desirable outcomes of a prod is that an author will decide that an unlikely article should be abandoned, and the 2nd clear voice may help him decide that. Of course I add a comment--perhaps some people do not know it is possible to do so. When I come across it in scanning the list of prods, I take it as a caution against removing one if I have some very slight feelings that it might be notable--again, depending on the reason. Same in working with expired ones. it's good to have a third voice, and I do not see how it could reasonably do any harm to the process. They should be used more. DGG (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm inclined to agree wtih DGG above, I see no problem with being able to second PROD decisions. GlassCobra 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: In spite of WP:CANVAS, I will often seek a 2nd Opinion on a PROD, and have often agreed with Some Other Editor and used this template. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 04:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Regarding finding applicable comments, how about modifying the prod template(s) so they more strongly direct (encourage) comments to a specific section on the talk page, creating an informal AFD discussion? Is it really that hard to find discussions on the talk page (assuming people do get encouraged to have them)? It seems that this template is used on articles with too few comments on the talk page, not too many. In addition, for articles that are kept, it would make the prod proposals, which are notable, easier to find. Also, is "user" really the best word choice for the template and not "editor" or something? --Jason McHuff (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: I created the {{Warn-article}} template to start discussions on article talk pages before deciding to WP:PROD, WP:CSD, or WP:AFD ... the companion {{Warn-editor}} is for pinging the author's talk page ... the point is that I have seen a seconded PROD be declined, and the article taken to AfD only to be speedy closed within 24 hours due to the outpouring of improvements ... sometimes, it can be resolved on the Talk page, but sometimes it takes an AfD to get volunteers to proactively contribute in a timely manner ... and then there are the times when an AfD is closed as Keep with the assumption that it will improve with time, so after six months with no improvements, it goes through a 2nd AfD and is deleted ... I see {{Prod-2}} as a useful barometer of WP:CONSENSUS that might hasten the deletion of an unredeemable article, but it is also a "safety brake" that the process is not happening Too Quickly for a worthy article that was just poorly presented ... if nothing else, this template indicates that Some Other Editor has taken an active interest in the article, and identifies someone who might be willing to help the author to improve it (which can be addressed on the talk page, if anyone is interested) ... I usually reference the {{Warn-article}} boilerplate message in my PROD or PROD-2 comments ("See talk page") ... since the PROD template already makes this suggestion, I don't think that an obligatory additional comment is required ... "You can lead a horse to water, but ..." Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply. I'm not intimately familiar with the PROD process and the different outcomes of it; it just seemed like a good idea to try to get people to have discussions on the talk page and use them to communicate agreement/reasons instead of using additional templates, and that the PROD template was lukewarm about (and not encouraging) discussions.
    • IOW, how is using Prod-2 better than adding an "agree" comment to the (hopefully already-existing) discussion on the talk page? Shouldn't discussions be held on the talk page and not through template clutter? --Jason McHuff (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I find it useful when cleaning the prod backlog. As addressed before, additional comments are welcomed and the reason could be an obligatory parameter in the template. --Tone 16:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Fabrictramp - agree it's pointless merely as a statement of support, but useful for adding reasons the original PRODder may have overlooked or not stated. JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This template is currently transcluded onto 38 pages (as of this writing). In addition to all comments above, it might make some people think twice about contesting a PROD. Additionally, it allows one to add arguments in favor of deletion without tampering with the original PROD. (Such tampering actually resets the clock if improperly done.) --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 05:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG's excellent rationale. Jfire (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep as said above, allows others to add reasons for deletion. Just because to doesn't not strictly serve a policy (one prod is enough to delete, and a second technically does not change anything) it does not misrepresent any policy (WP:CSD#T2). Jon513 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I believe it helps the process, as it shows that the nomination is a considered one, rather than a maverick nomination. Indeed the process might be greatly improved if {{prod-2}} was required Mayalld (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would oppose such a change. Sometimes an article gets prodded because it has been long forgotten, and a random page patroller got to it. Also, by performing the actual deletion of a prodded article, an admin actually expresses his own endorsement of the prod. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I find it helpful when clearing the prod backlog, especially in cases where the original prodder is a newbie, but the seconding person is a regular. It's also more obvious than a comment on the talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As DGG said, the template is mostly there for admins to help with their decisions...it lets them know that at least one other user has seen the page, and can give additional rationale in case there was none left by the original prodder. For the record, I'm a prod patroller, and WP:WPPDP has some details on how this template gets used by us. I just wish there was a way to keep people from using {{subst:prod2}}...--UsaSatsui (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep DGG says it all, this template is useful for admins, and can give another rationale if the first prodder doesn't give a rationale. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Since the people in the "delete prodded articles" business such as Fabrictramp and DGG testify to the template's usefulness in making decisions and improving the reasons, and they make a reasonable argument, I think we should listen to them. A prod2 does not make it more difficult to contest the prod, if the second reason is better and persuades a would-be de-prodder from contesting it, then that is a load off the AFD process. If the second argument doesn't persuade either, then contesting it is still easy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, because WP:ILIKEIT. No, seriously, it allows for greater consensus in judging whether to delete - which is always a good thing. Totally harmless as well.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I use it often as a prod patroller. I know that when I add a prod-2 template, it is because I have checked the the article's talk page and history, and the talk page of the article's author and major contributor(s) to see if they protest the prod and had neglected to remove the template. I'm basically checking to see if the prod is valid. I'll also add additional information in favor of the prod or add a reason that's lacking in the original prod. Without the prod-2 template it makes it awkward to add that information while patrolling. -- Atama^chat 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I was just placing the template on an article when the TfD message led me here. I think it serves a useful purpose, it allows another editor to quickly and easily add an opinion or alternate deletion rationale to a prodded article. I can see no good reason for deletion of this template. RMHED (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keeep Its useful and can reinforce the point of the original prodder. MBisanz ^talk 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a snowball keep now, but just to add the same arguments again: as we have now heard this template actually works, ie it prevent garbage articles from being deprodded because of some procedure, this should be a simple call. It's a lot of work to take articles to AfD. I may sound lazy, but that really takes time. Greswik (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per rationales that say it nicely by DGG. I don't think it's out of hand to have an additional opinion when attempting to close prods or contest prods. It's actually quite helpful to those that are rescuing prodded articles and those that are eliminatinig prodded articles. Cheers, Keeper | 76 19:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Per DGG and personal experience: Not having been aware that this template existed, I have in the past updated existing prod notices with additional reasons to delete. I do however concur with nom's point that a prod2 that only says "I agree" is worthless. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I disagree ... that Some Other Editor "agrees" says a lot in itself, both to admins and other editors ... a Prod-2 that says "See talk page" is sufficient, IMHO. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 18:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep DGG's says it all. Also this can be extremely useful to the closing admin if no rationale is provided by the original proder. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep it is useful for the closing admin (and shows that someone else acknowledged the prod). I disagree with every idea to direct people to the talk page. You disagree, you remove both tags and that's all. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. An article I created from a redirect a couple of years ago has just been prodded. I put this template on to show I support the Prod. It's a useful tag. Though I'd like it if the support comments could be displayed in the same manner as the prod tag. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 15:01, 1 February 2008 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirect. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Lonely (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant to {{Orphan}}. This template is in fact identical to that template, but with a different name and image, and is newer and lesser-used. I suggest replacing all instances of this with 'Orphan'; I can't see the need for two templates that say the exact same thing. — Terraxos (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Cute, but delete as redundant to {{Orphan}}. JPG-GR (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{orphan}}. --Phirazo 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete instead of redirecting - Wikipedia is littered with redirect templates. Green Giant (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The template namespace is indeed cluttered by redirects and forks such as this. Happy‑melon 11:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No need to redirect. Does anybody need to redirect a template like this? Most of the world isn't going to search for templates the way they search articles. Doczilla (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{Orphan}} - There are several articles using this template. A simple redirect could tell the articles to use the {{Orphan}} template instead - and redirects are cheap in my opinion. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as intuitive alias. –Pomte 16:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect I personally might start using it as a redirect name.--SeizureDog (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{Orphan}} as a synonym for it. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, and change the articles that use it to {{Orphan}}. No need for the duplication.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)d
• Delete or redirect, redundant template. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — We don't need a redirect. Those "several" articles which use the template (at the time of this posing) break down like this:
  • 10 plain links including this page (TFD log 26Jan08) and the main TFD page
  • 15 direct transclusions
  • 1 redirect (viz Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage/do-lonely which should be deleted along with this)
    • 12 transclusions via the above redirect.

Jɪmp 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment — I've replaced the transclusions with {{orphan}}.Jɪmp 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need any template redirects, but they're useful when people forget what the original is called. –Pomte 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect. The template is silly, but I like the name. Why not use it? --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{Orphan}}. If deleted, I bet such a redirect will be created within hours. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect – name based on now-defunct Special:Lonelypages. Gracenotes^T § 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (or Redirect). Note also that one of the transclusions that Jimp fixed has been "unfixed". Evidently not everyone likes "orphan". :) -- Fullstop (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2008 (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.