Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 10



Template:Appendix

 * 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)



This template draws a box around editor-selected sections of an article, gives these sections a single (configurable) new name, removes the actual section names from the table of contents, and eliminates the [Edit] buttons from the sections themselves. At least as generally implemented, it is used to place several article appendices into a box labeled "Sources and references". Typically, the common appendix ==See also== is skipped, but ==External links== is oddly included as a kind of reference. This template was transwikied in good faith from the Dutch-language Wikipedia. It has been largely, perhaps exclusively, used by the single editor who transwikied it. Unfortunately, it is not used in ways that comply with the English Wikipedia's layout and formatting guidelines, and I don't believe that it is possible for it to do so. For example: sections wrapped up in this template use level 3 headers instead of level 2 headers, which is contrary to the fourth sentence in MOS:APPENDIX. The removal of the actual section headings from the table of contents is also contrary to the fourth sentence in MOS:APPENDIX. The inclusion of ==External links== as a type of "sources and references" is contrary to both WP:ELPOINTS #1 and the first sentence in MOS:APPENDIX. As it can only be used in ways that violate our layout guidelines, and as I foresee no likelihood of those guidelines being changed in this direction, I think that this template should be deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Previous discussions were at User_talk:Gimmetrow; I have left a note there about this TfD and hope that we can leave Gimmetrow in peace now.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if my use of the template so far was (unknowingly) against the guidelines, the template itself doesn't violate them. Please read my case for the template at User talk:Gimmetrow for my reasons to import it here. I'd like to comment about some of the points WhatamIdoing and others made:
 * The section headers are not removed from the table of contents by this template. This must be a misunderstanding.
 * The ==See also== appendix can be included in the box. I see no problem with that.
 * The title of the template can be changed and is included in the TOC-menu as a level 2 header (as WhatamIdoing already wrote). I see no problem with that either.
 * The treatment of external links as a type of "reference" is indeed against both WP:ELPOINTS #1 and the first sentence in MOS:APPENDIX. Additionally, it is true my current use of the template violates MOS:APPENDIX in the sense that all appendices are treated as level 3 headers under a single level 2 header. In both cases I would rather suggest to slightly change the guidelines. External links are a type of reference for the reader, like the ==see also== section or literature list. Treating external links as a different entity encourages the creation of small webportals inside articles, but that's not what the ==external links== section is for: it is to provide the reader with websites that give additional information or different viewpoints about the subject. The guideline uses the term "standard appendices", which already suggests they are somehow seen as one entity. Making them level 3 headers under one level 2 header seemed then logical to me. But, if changing the guidelines is not deemed desirable, it is possible to have level 2 headers for all sections in the box without any technical problem. It is my way of using the template that violates the guidelines, not the template itself, which just draws a box. All other things it does are optional. Woodwalker (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I apologize to Gimmetrow if we were annoying. I always refrain from removing discussions from other user's TP's because I feel it is up to the TP owner to decide.
 * Having so many people hitting her talk page may have resulted in a lot of messages about new messages, but you should not blame yourself for it, as your messages alone surely wouldn't have been a bother, and were doubtless interesting. BTW, I've converted your oppose to bold text; I suspect that you want it to say "Keep" instead.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This seems, from the discussion at User_talk:Gimmetrow, to be an attempt to enforce a new style on appendices (Woodwalker apparently wasn't even aware of the existing guidelines on en-WP at the time). I can't see any benefit at all to using this template: it doesn't appear to make the process of adding endnotes any easier, although it does appear to make it harder to edit them once they are (by removing the section edit links). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because of unintended consequences. My worry is that as more and more templates get added to articles, it becomes harder and harder for non experienced editors, who may not be particularly computer literate, to join the party. If that happens then Wikipedia will gradually lose a large pool of potential new editors, and we already have problems of systemic bias. --PBS (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, for all the reasons already mentioned, including that it invalidates edit links, and because there is no discernible benefit from cluttering articles with this template. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, rather than just deleting it, I suggest that where it is in use in articles it is "subst:" first so that the, format of the articles is not disrupted by its removal. Once done the substituted text can be edited further if necessary in the individual articles.  -- PBS (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2009 (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.