Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 5



Template:@@

 * 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 Userfy

(Also co-nominating all subpages.)

Orphaned. Seems to have been proposed in May, but has not changed since. The idea of "out-of-body references" does not have general support from the community. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The template is essential for the demonstration page, and the proposal is not dead. The proposed mechanism (or any variation thereof) would actually make editing easier and more pleasant for most users.  Unfortunately the idea is hard to explain without a working prototype, and that requires a lot of programming by Wikipedia's team (my hacked-up demo is not good enough for that purpose). This seems to be the main reason why it hasn't gone forward. (By the way, this case shows a big defect of the current archiving policy. Any proposal that takes longer than a few months to implement will be archived, independently of its merit; ad then no one will ever look at it again...) (The statistics on wikipedia growth strongly indiate that the number and/or productivity of Wikipedia edtors was growing exponentially until late 2005; but then something happened, and since early 2006 it has been declining exponentially.  I would bet that the fateful event was the policy of requiring references in all articles.  While references are a good thing, the present mechanish is a disaster, since the insertion of bibliography entries in mid-paragraph or mid-sentence makes the source text almost impossible to read. Old editors now find editing much less fun, and potential new editors probably give up when they click "edit" and see only a jumble of inscrutable infoboxes, navboxes, wikitables, editorial templates, and entries.  If the present growth trend continues, in another decade Wikipedia will stop growing while still in its present state: with millions of important articles that are still missing or sorely inadequate.  If we really want "Wikipedia forever", we must find a way to clean up the source text from all those messy devices; in particular, to move the entries out of the article text.  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
 * PS. I should add also that the template is quite harmless (being in template space, it will not normally be seen by readers), that writing it was quite a bit of work (not just mine), that it will become necessary if/when the proposal gets discussed again, and that its purpose cannot be achieved in any other way (unlike a deleted article, that will "work" even if moved to a User subpage or to an external site). --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS: ARGH! The insertion of the deletion notice in the "@@" template BROKE the template, so the demo page above does not work any more. PLEASE, when inserting the delete notice in a template, be careful to do so only in the section. I am fixing it. Thanks... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly that the current referencing system is messy, and scary for newbies. However, templates are probably not the way to fix it. Using an arbitrary number to identify each reference, and then having to view/edit a separate page to access the reference, is likely to confuse people even more. With the Wikipedia Usability Initiative now well underway, I expect that we will see an improved referencing frontend over the next year. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good news! But then please let's wait until then. If the problem is solved, then the "@@" template and my demo will become irrelevant, and I will not object to them being deleted. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I looked at the WP Usability link and their English WP prototype, but could not see anything relevant to reference markup. Where should I look, exactly? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There doesn't actually seem to be anything specific (the Usability Wiki is very disorganised), but given this and this, I think they'll be doing something. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Delldot (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Userify. Until the proposal is approved, it's inactive and the templates aren't necessary.  As a principle matter, I don't think people should be using the regular template space for tests (like we wouldn't allow its usage for test articles).  Disputes over the actual system don't belong at TfD at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy, and don't move back to "Template:" namespace unless and until there's a good reason to do so, and it is properly documented. I've been at this stuff for a long time (2005+), and found the page to be gibberish, so I shudder to think what our less template-geeky users are going to make of it. Userfication won't really affect the proposals and tests - just replace  with  . —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:42, 9 December 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.

Template:Muslims and controversies

 * 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 a near-unanimous Keep. If particular articles linked in the template are in violation of WP:NPOV or other policies, they should be edited or removed, but as long as neutrally-written articles on controversies exist, there is nothing wrong with having a navigation box to link them. Non-admin closure. RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Islamophobic primary research, propaganda and POV. Izzedine 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Neutral point of view is a reason to edit material, not to delete it. Please provide a less terse nomination text. Andjam (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The template is Islamophobic; it is nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of negative subjects related to Muslims. It has clearly been created for propaganda purposes. The template is also primary research, and violates neutral point of view in its very subject. We don't want to give a greenlight for a "Judaism and Jews controversies" template.. Izzedine 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * we have such a template. It's at Antisemitism. The fact that Wikipedia covers Antisemitism doesn't make Wikipedia antisemitic. Give us a break. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If there's an issue with the menu, don't delete it, fix it, if we just delted stuff that was non nutral and unsorched with out look at fixing them we'd only have 4 or 5 pages left. (honestly, religion is always going to be a issue with neutrality, so fixing should be attempted)--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 11:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above, feel free to edit or change it. (And btw, why not give a greenlight to similar templates?) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, but perhaps in the long run, the parts about "persecutions of other groups" should be spinned-off. bogdan (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Helps me and others find the articles, and as the editors have pointed out, it is a valid template. Alex (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Most muslims do not know about their own religion. See Caravan Raids —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy keep, suspect trolling. --dab (𒁳) 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very helpful, especially for muslims, because it seems that most of them know only the bright side of their religion Misiekuk (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: Bad faith nomination?  -Pickbothmanlol-   00:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep:. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: Totally necessary, given that Islam has had it's fair share of controversies from it's very beginning.  Joy son Kon ka ni  09:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Though there are particular entries that could be removed or discussed. WebbedToe (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. POV nomination? Though some of its content could be discussed, there are no reason to simply delete the template in itself. -TheG (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's both justified and useful. There are controversies surrounding aspects of Islam, and collecting them together in a template is neither OR nor a violation of NPOV. Aryaman  (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Confusing, not helpful. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Listing controversies relating to a religion does not mean Wikipedia supports them. See the antisemitism template for precedent. --CF90 (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep very useful template as many muslims are not aware of these issues. Eli  +  11:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Most of the reasons given above. Would also like to add; this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. When people use this site, finding the right articles (regardless of the topic) should be made as easy as possible. --Ibn Kaafir (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree with Pickbothmanlol looks like a Bad faith nomination and with Ibn Kaafir finding the right articles (regardless of the topic) should be made as easy as possible. Codf1977 (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Templates should not be badges of shame, but if there is an actual legitimate study of a certain kind of controversy, then I don't see why this template should be deleted. If there are serious issues with it, they can be fixed with editing.  Besides, religion in itself can be a highly contentious, highly controversial issue &mdash; and similar devices exist on Wikipedia for a wide variety of religious topics. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:56, 11 December 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.

Template:WP Chicago-user

 * 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 speedy delete under criterion G7 (creator requests deletion). –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 08:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)



Redundant and inferior to User WPChicago. Nominator = Creator. Rrius (talk) 06:28, 5 December 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.