Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 8



Future-Class and Current-Class

 * 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The result of the debate was Speedy keep (nomination withdrawn), with request that the templates be fully documented by WP:1.0 to prevent any further confusion. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

per WP:CFD per WP:CFD
 * and
 * and

These are pointless, confusing, confused and redundant. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, as nominator. If WP1.0 is actually happy with this, and thinks that the confusion sewn by adding non-quality and non-exemption "classes" to a scale of a quality assessment classes is okay, then feel free to speedily keep this.  In exchange, please actually document these properly so people know what they are for and know that they aren't bogus. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)  Delete (as nominator). Rationale:

—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}}
 * 1) Not accepted as valid article quality classes by 1.0
 * 2) Because they aren't - the article quality classes are for assessing article quality, not article subject area or contemporaneity. The real classes either assess quality, or indicate that the page whose talk page is flagged is exempt from such classification because it is a category, redirect, template, etc., or is a list article subject to different WP:FA criteria than regular articles. There is no consensus at all for the notion that articles on current or future events are magically exempt from the criteria of a B-class article, a WP:GA, etc., and these bogus classes interfere with use of the real ones.
 * 3) They are completely redundant, as we already have various templates for tagging an article as being about an ongoing or forthcoming event, and categories for both current and future events articles, which already show a pattern of increasing topicalicality. We should not overload the quality assessment process with redundant behavior that conflicts with its actual purpose. Whether or not these templates do any categorization is not relevant, as they can be made to do so if this is desired but some do not already, and the categories nominated here are misnamed, since they are not actually article class assessments at all.
 * 4) Objected to at Template talk:Cat class, one of the major templates that display all of these classes, and not fully implemented at that template (the parameters do not cause errors but they also do not display, and there is no consensus for them to do so). Not supported by Template:Grading scheme, the talk page of which has directed proponents of such pseudo-classes to take the matter up at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index, which establishes the class scheme, and this has not happened.
 * 5) Not used in the other templates that display all of these classes (see points 1 and 2 above for why).
 * 6) Not widely deployed in articlespace (there are about 1000 transclusions on user talk pages due to WikiProject newsletters making use of these "classes", but this fallout will be completely trivial, as most of them are collapsed messageboxes that no one looks at anyway).
 * 7) Not widely deployed by projects (see subcategories of the categories - there are a number of them, but it is only a small fraction of total projects)
 * 8) Simple bot cleanup solution: Replace  and   with   in WikiProject banners on article talk pages, ignore other cases. This will put the articles into the unassessed categories, so that they can be identfied and properly assessed with valid assessment values.
 * 9) Simple human followup: Remove code relating to and mention of this parameter from the few project banners that have it, which can probably be identified simply by looking at the two nominated categories.
 * Comment. Allowing WikiProjects to flag their articles as covering a "Current" or "Future" topic is useful, though I agree that templates can be adapted to implement this distinction in a separate parameter to the standard "Class" field. If this deletion goes ahead I would recommend giving the affected WikiProjects a few days to implement template redesigns before getting a robot to recategorise the talk pages. Alternatively, have the bot provide each WikiProject with a list of talk pages that have had the Current and Future parameters removed so that they can restore them later under a revised template. Road Wizard (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Just to be clear (so this is not taken as a "keep" rationale) they are article quality assessment templates, no more no less, so they cannot be repurposed. They aren't even really templates in the usual sense, but rather subtemplates intended for use in Template:Cat class and a few other templates that make use of these subtemplates (Template:Grading scheme is another one), as triggered by class parameters in WikiProject talk page banners or used outside the project system to create lists of article quality assessments, such as that at WP:1.0's assessment page. Cat class, Grading scheme and the subtemplates don't really have anything at all to do with WikiProjects other than that projects can use Cat class with regard to articles that the project has assessed; but Cat class is really a WP1.0 animal. What projects want to do (if anything) instead of this about flagging articles as current- or future-covering has nothing to do with these templates or categories.  I.e., the discussions are effectively unrelated, since any such solution must necessarily be something that does not make use of the article quality assessment system. If any such feature were implemented, it should be done at Template talk:WPBannerMeta, and if it needed categories they would not be labeled falsely as categories in the article quality assessment system. Basically, none of the usual processes for adding features to project banners were used here, and instead a WP1.0 system was hacked to do it, without consensus, in a really disruptive and confused way. It would be nice if the projects got a list of article-space pages flagged with these pseudoclasses, but given that there have long been other templates for doing such future/current tagging, and a cleanup bot could use a distinct edit summary that watchlisting project participants will see, deletion of the malformed method here should not be contingent upon this nicety. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. As a member of WP:1.0, I'll go point-by-point:
 * Not accepted as valid article quality classes by 1.0
 * They are not yet accepted as valid quality classes. However, support for these is built into the second generation of the Wikipedia 1.0 bot, so that's not an actual reason. We recognize them as part of the "extended" assessment scale.
 * Because they aren't - the article quality classes are for assessing article quality, not article subject area or contemporaneity. The real classes either do this, or indicate that the page whose talk page is flagged is exempt from such classification because it is a category, redirect, template, etc., or is a list article subject to different WP:FA criteria than regular articles. There is no consensus at all for the notion that articles on current or future events are magically exempt from the criteria of a B-class article, a WP:GA, etc., and these bogus classes interfere with use of the real ones.
 * On the other hand, these templates say, "don't bother assessing it yet". They are useful in that purpose, preventing editors from wasting their time assessing an article that will change significantly soon.
 * They are completely redundant, as we already have various templates for tagging an article as being about an ongoing or forthcoming event. We should not overload the quality assessment process with redundant behavior that conflicts with its actual purpose. Whether or not these templates do any categorization is not relevant, as they can be made to do so if this is desired but some do not already, and the categories nominated here are misnamed, since they are not actually article class assessments at all.
 * Again, this is wrong. The assessments interfere as much as FA-Class interferes with featured. They are for different processes.
 * Objected to at Template talk:Cat class, one of the major templates that display all of these classes, and not fully implemented at that template (the parameters do not cause errors but they also do not display, and there is no consensus for them to do so). Not supported by Template:Grading scheme, the talk page of which has directed proponents of such pseudo-classes to take the matter up at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index, which establishes the class scheme, and this has not happened.
 * Um, it has been accepted. I'm not sure what gave Template talk:Cat class that official status. The central point for coordination for that is Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, and all discussions in the last few months have taken both Current and Future classes into account. Besides, these templates are included in the See also section of the documentation template of all the assessment categories (see, e.g. A-Class).
 * Not used in the other templates that display all of these classes (see points 1 and 2 above for why).
 * Again, incorrect.
 * Not widely deployed in articlespace (there are about 1000 transclusions on user talk pages due to WikiProject newsletters making use of these "classes", but this fallout will be completely trivial, as most of them are collapsed messageboxes that no one looks at anyway).
 * Because these classifications are of a transitory nature.
 * Not widely deployed by projects (see subcategories of the categories - there are a number of them, but it is only a small fraction of total projects)
 * Nor are List-Class, Cat-Class, Template-Class or the rest of the extended assessment scale. These assessments are completely optional, and arecent test showed that less than 20 WikiProjects include any of the extended templates as part of their assessment scheme. So, unless you're asking for the deletion of the whole extended scale, I don't see the problem here.
 * Simple bot cleanup solution: Replace  and   with   in WikiProject banners on article talk pages, ignore other cases. This will put the articles into the unassessed categories, so that they can be identfied and properly assessed with valid assessment values.
 * Which is an undesirable solution, as these templates signify articles that will require assessment attention in the future, after heavy editing periods have passed.
 * Simple human followup: Remove code relating to and mention of this parameter from the few project banners that have it, which can probably be identified simply by looking at the two nominated categories.
 * Again, unnecessary, for the reasons I explained above. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Additional non-standard grades such as these are permitted by WP:ASSESS, and are used at the discretion of individual WikiProjects. Deletion would be wholly unproductive to those WikiProjects that do use these classes and find them useful (I know for a fact that WP:FILM do). Much of the nominators reasoning is IMHO fallacious. Template-Class, Category-Class, and at least a dozen others aren't "valid" grades either, and also have nothing to do with article assessment. Omission from Cat class and Grading scheme is neither here nor there, and redundancy is really a matter of opinion. Creating a massive cleanup job on behalf of WikiProjects who may not want these deleted in the first place really won't be helping anyone. PC78 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: You do not appear to have actually read what I wrote very carefully, but I guess it's a moot point since I've withdrawn the nomination. Just to be clear, I specifically stated that Template-Class, Category-Class, etc. are exemptions from the grading scale, so of course they "also have [some]thing to do with article assessment". Titoxd now makes it clear that Future-Class and Current-Class are also intended as (temporary) exemptions. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:34, 8 September 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.

Template:Terrorismbycountry

 * 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 delete --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Template namespace: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article. Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category or a See also list can perform the same function." Until recently, this long template was used only on the article Counter-terrorism, where it masqueraded as article content. The contents (and history) of this template should be moved to List of counterterrorist units and agencies (or perhaps into Counter-terrorism) and the template itself deleted. Any articles can then link to the list in the "See also" section. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:47, 8 September 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.

Template:Coords dec to dms

 * 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unused. Redundant to coord. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:48, 8 September 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.

Template:POWdis

 * 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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that this template is any more helpful than disambig...I don't see the point of having lots of different disambiguation templates when one would suffice. What do you think? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Disambig. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 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.

Template:Singles By Rihanna

 * 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 delete. Wizardman 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Template is a content-duplicate of. Winger84 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Author also created about three other articles speedily deleted. - eo (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:17, 8 September 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.

Template:WikiProject Nintendo

 * 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Nintendo has now turned into a task force, and a bot has already removed all instances of this template in all of its articles, replacing them with WikiProject Video games' task force designation on their templates. Hence, this template is (at least, should now be) orphaned and is no longer needed for use. MuZemike (talk) 08:55, 8 September 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.