Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 22



Template:Ucfd top

 * 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 Ucfd top/bottom Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Ucfd top with Template:Cfd top and Template:Ucfd bottom with Template:Cfd bottom. Redundant to Cfd top/Cfd bottom. No other namespaces have their own template for closing Cfd discussions, nor is there any need for such. Since they aren't even in Category:Categories for discussion templates I didn't know they existed, until I saw somebody use them today, and I was really surprise why suddenly we had a grey closed discussion between all the light-blue ones. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the two UCFD templates. Since UCFD was merged back into CFD, you're correct, there is no need for the separate UCFD templates.  No need to merge them, though.  Just delete.  --Kbdank71 01:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the Ucfd ones. No need to have two different templates for the same procedure. Jafeluv (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the Ucfd templates. There is no content or functionality that needs to be merged, and no transclusions that need to be redirected, so really a "merge" wouldn't amount to anything. --RL0919 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No need for these now that UCFD has been merged back to CFD.  Having legacy templates like these sticking around is only going to lead to confusion.  --  X damr  talk 16:26, 23 February 2010 (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:New unreviewed article

 * 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 no consensus to merge Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The result was withdrawn by nominator. It seems obvious now that all agree these templates serve two separate purposes. Sebwite (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The result was withdrawn by nominator. It seems obvious now that all agree these templates serve two separate purposes. Sebwite (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The result was withdrawn by nominator. It seems obvious now that all agree these templates serve two separate purposes. Sebwite (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:New unreviewed article with Template:Newpage.

Merge per WP:TFD reason #2. This template is redundant to newpage, but is less efficient. All newly created pages that are yet to be patrolled are new unreviewed articles. This does not need to be marked by a template unless the creator fears deletion, which newpage is supposed to prevent. All unpatrolled pages contain an icon to mark them as patrolled when read by an autoconfirmed user who is logged in. Sebwite (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge Newpage was created by the nominator in October 2009. It misses all of the categorisation and failsafes that New unreviewed article has and is generally redundant to it. Please note that New unreviewed article was created as part of the Article wizard 2.0 project, and is used by Userspace draft. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * object to merge. (after edit conflict with above comment) The primary use of New unreviewed article is on articles created by the article wizard to which it is added automatically. It would emphatically be incorrect for such articles to say, as newpage does, that "Its author is familiar with Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines and has done so in good faith." Indeed the main point of New unreviewed article is that it generally marks an article created in good faith by a relatively inexperienced editor, who may well not be familiar  with inclusion or formatting standards, and whose work may therefore need significant improvement, but who should be advised gently, in line with WP:BITE. I would hope that new page patrollers would take this into account when dealing with articles so tagged. It may well be that the template message should be better worded to convey this msg without being a "badge of shame" or itself being WP:BITEy. But the use and purpose of the two templates, while related, is distinct, so a merge would be undesireable. DES (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This template is in use on about 70 pages, mostly userpages. I think it should be merged, and the text about the user being familiar with "Wikipedia's inclusion criteria" (which is a link to Notability) is not a reason to say that this template is so much different. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Object. There is a substantial difference between the aims of the templates, and I'm curious how a merged template would meet both. "new unreviewed article" is supposed to mark an article as needing review, being marked either automatically or by someone happening upon a new article that needs a closer look than they can give right then. "new page" seems to be more of a "please don't delete me" sort of aim, added manually by experienced editors. It mystifies me a bit who would want to use it and why; and indeed right now there are only 9 mainspace uses of it (3 of them in BLPs - taking the very recently deceased one as a BLP too - despite the injunction "This template should not be used on biographies of living persons.", which mystifies me a bit anyway). Much of what "new page" says is just policy. If anything, "new page" should be merged with Under construction or Increation. Rd232 talk 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, then let's do that. You gave some pretty strong arguments for outright deletion, so at least merge it. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are different templates that have developed over the years, each with different uses which have changed over time:
 * construction is for pages that already exist, but are undergoing a major change over course of several hours or days. In the past, it was also used for new pages.
 * inuse for pages that are undergoing a series of changes during the editor's current session
 * newpage for newly created pages. The message is indeed "please don't delete me." It lets new page patrollers know that the page should meet Wikipedia guidelines within the creator's current session.
 * Per WP:KISS, it is best, if possible to use the shortest names possible for any of these templates, another reason why "newpage" is better than "new unreviewed article." Sebwite (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed you correctly indicate the purposes of all three of the above templates. But "new unreviewed article" has a purpose different from any of the above. It says "article probably constructed via the article wizard, or moved into mainsapce after having been a userspace draft. Article probably drafted by a relatively inexperienced editor, may need special attention to both avoid loss of good but improperly formatted or sourced content, and to avoid inclusion of inappropriate content." note that Userspace draft if on a page in the main article space (generally left on a draft that has been moved to article space recently) becomes a call to new unreviewed article. I think all four should be retained, and none merged. If any merge is wanted it should be between newpage and construction, perhaps by adding a "new=yes" parameter to construction that would change the displayed text. Or possibly newpage should be redirected to increation. DES (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Userspace draft is currently used on somewhere between 300 and 400 articles in mainspace. DES (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete newpage redundant with underconstruction - that assumes that the current session(s) of the user will improve it to the standard needed for keeping it on Wikipedia. It needn't matter if it is a new or old article being revamped. new unreviewed article should be kept as is since its function is different. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never proposed deleting newpage, and I feel it is not redundant to underconstruction. "Underconstruction" was used in the past to mark new pages, but its meaning has been changed so much that it has been used specifically for the major modification of already existing pages, and a different message is needed for brand new pages that may take multiple edits to make them look good. Sebwite (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that the discussion has started, even deletion could be an outcome of it. I think it is a nice template, but redundant. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - a generally useful template which does the task it's designed for. It's different from Newpage - that one is for pages made by experienced editors that may not be finished, while this one is for pages which are finished but whose creators may not be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines. If anything, I agree with the IP above - Newpage is the one that should be deleted or merged, as it seems redundant to Underconstruction, but that's outside the scope of this TFD. Robofish (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2010 (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:Global warming controversy

 * Relisted at Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 3 at . Nsaa (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)