Template talk:Unencyclopedic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 October 7. The result of the discussion was to keep..

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 March 22. The result of the discussion was no consensus, defaulting to keep..

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 July 16. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This template was considered for deletion on 2008 January 21. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

May 2005 to December 2006 Current discussion

[edit] friendly?

So far from being friendly, this is one of the nastier ones, & I'm not sure whether or not it is intended. Nothing can be friendly which mentions "deletion" quite so prominently, or says that some un-named person has suggested it (Of course I know it's in the page history, but the person who sees the message may not. ) I suggest a less dramatic color, a slightly smaller size, and the following wording

An editor has expressed concern that this article or section may be unencyclopedic. This is primarily a statement about the article's subject, not necessarily its quality or veracity. Please review what Wikipedia is not and try to resolve any objections on the talk page. Articles that can not be rewritten to be suitable for Wikipedia may be appropriate for deletion.

DGG 03:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that stop hand is very biting, especially to newcomers who create "unencyclopedic" pages. Hydrogen Iodide 02:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for clean up

After poking fun at this template (off-wiki, specifically the stop-hand and phrase "An editor has expressed concern") for months now, I decided it's time to clean up this template. First of all, I was surprised to see this stop hand appear in an article template when I first saw this template. I personally think a stop-hand image associates best with serious level-4 user warnings, not with article issues. Therefore, I think that stop-hand image needs to be replaced with the important-exclamation-mark image or the information icon instead. This will probably make the template a little friendlier and maybe less biting to newcomers who create "unencyclopedic" pages. Second, the phrase "An editor has expressed concern" should be removed, since this phrase seems to point a finger at the editor who added the template. In addition, I have seen a similar phrase added to {{tone}}, but the phrase was regarded as fluff and removed. Lastly, the wording of this template needs to be condensed down because the current template seems to be wordy and it contains redundant links in some parts. In light of the concerns stated above, the repeated word "deletion" also needs to be cut out, since this word probably bites newcomers as well. Maybe this template won't appear on deletion discussion as much after these changes. To sum it up, the template currently (August 2007) looks like a hybrid between a user-warning (stop-hand) and a wordy article cleanup template, which to me is not good. Needless to say, just looking at the template (as of August 2007) makes me laugh.

Basically the template here is an article cleanup-template-fied version of {{unencyclopedic}}. It gets rid of the user warning-ish part and incorporates the style and wording of other cleanup templates (e.g. {{unreferenced}}).

---

---

Hydrogen Iodide 20:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks much better to me. The existing design seems far to aggresive in image, color and size. I came here to suggest redesign and saw you had already done it. PrimeHunter 04:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I will wait and see what others have to say about these changes before actually revamping the template. Hydrogen Iodide 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: Well the template appears better now, but the wording still an issue. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 00:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tried to remove some of the vagueness from this template, although it's still pretty vague to be honest. I'm not sure this template does anything other then confuse most people and leave things unclear. It would be best to use wording other then Unencyclopedic, but then the templates name would be incorrect. SunCreator (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Changed it. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold. The word unencyclopedic on wikipedia means WP:NOT yet many (possibly most) editors use the word unencyclopedic to be more of a dictionary definition, so basically not like an encyclopedia in it's style, layout, wording etc and required a cleanup. This leads to some raising articles for deletion claiming an article is unencyclopedic(in the later sense) and should be deleted, when the article meets requirements of WP:NOT. SunCreator (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That is better, though I'd be surprised if it doesn't overlap some other template now, and the word "unencyclopedic" is better avoided altogether due to its subjective nature. Is there a better word we could use?---Father Goose (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of trying one word(which seems impossible) maybe explain it with several, for example.

'An editor has expressed concern that this article or section is not suitable material for an encyclopedia article'.

SunCreator (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a shot, and changed other aspects of the template formatting to match similar templates, like Template:OR.--Father Goose (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Father Goose! The last few edits have brought much improvement to this template. SunCreator (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Did a minor rewording of the link. Overall, it looks much better than before. Great work! Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 07:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've change inappropriate to not appropriate. I think that for some the link beginning with not will trigger a recognition that it refers to WP:NOT. SunCreator (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this sentence: If the article is wholly inappropriate to Wikipedia, it may be challenged or removed. could be worded better. Maybe: Content inappropriate for Wikipedia may be challenged or removed. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 23:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "challenged" and "removed" link to PROD and AfD, respectively, so that specific advice should only be applied to articles that are pure NOT violations. Additionally, it's probably not a good idea to have a template that says "this can be removed"; if it's unambiguously inappropriate material, it should be removed outright, not tagged. If its appropriateness is merely being called into question, discussion (on the talk page or at an AfD for an entire article) should be encouraged instead of giving the next person who reads the tag blanket permission to remove the material.--Father Goose (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems possible you might have misread what Trance addict wrote. I don't think he or she is suggesting the removal of the link to the talk page. But rather to amend the sentence following, which would continue to include both the links to PROD and Afd. SunCreator (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No I understood it. If we write "Content inappropriate to Wikipedia can be challenged or removed, that's no good because "content" isn't handled by those processes; only whole articles. If the entire article is a bozo, it should be prodded or AfDed anyway, not given this template.

And content (short of an entire article) that is "NOT" should either be removed or discussed, but not given a tag which says "this can be removed"... with links to AfD. I'd agree to just remove the whole second sentence. Where "NOT" material is concerned, either delete it or tag-to-discuss it.--Father Goose (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Can we change the name to {{NOT}} since the non-existent term 'unencyclopedic' is no longer a part of the template? the_undertow ^talk 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. So your saying remove the final sentence. That makes sense. SunCreator (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Removed the last sentence. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 01:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, what should the name of the template be? I'd say we go with {{NOT}} as mentioned above and have several redirects, such as {{icontent}} or {{imaterial}} or {{exclude}}. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 01:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

{{NOT}} makes sense. I wouldn't bother with the redirects; people can add synonyms if they like at any time. If we pagemove it to NOT, it'll still have {{unencyclopedic}} as a synonym so that all the existing uses will continue to work (I think; I've never actually moved a template).--Father Goose (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure {{NOT}} makes sense to be honest. Only people that know WP:NOT would realise that it meant. Not can mean other things like not notable, not referenced etc, so maybe think twice before making a change. SunCreator (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Having thought about it, it seems that doesn't really matter. It's reading the temaplte where the understanding comes. SunCreator (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I obviously have a problem with the word 'unencylopedic' because I'm seeing used by editors at XfD's etc and it's killing me. But you guys have rewritten this template, and it actually works! I like it. It's not longer vague, and expresses a concern. I think we have the beginning of a consensus to move it to Template:NOT, and yeah, I've never moved a template either, but what the heck. the_undertow ^talk 23:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the move idea as it more closely ties the template with WP:NOT ad they can link o each other - maybe it should be proposed on the Moves page.....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Except....what is this? {{tl:Not}}

A logical not symbol, a template used on 3 pages. Friend of {{And}},{{Or}} {{Or-}} and {{Xor}} SunCreator (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Edit to show it's called Or- rather then Or SunCreator (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to change the category too. the_undertow ^talk 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, {{or}} is this template: ^{[original research?]} and {{OR}} is the {{ambox}}ed version. {{or-}} is the logic-symbol template. We might want to usurp {{not}} (rename it to {{not-}}, most likely) if we move this template to NOT or not or and or nor or... *feathers fall out*

If we're going to usurp {{not}}, which we probably should to minimize future confusion, we should do it at requested moves.--Father Goose (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a month... are we going to move ahead with the renaming of this template to Template:NOT? Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 04:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

good idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)