Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 9



Template:2003 Wildcats

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete per rationale on Nebraska Cornhuskers templates below; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football for discussion. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial information and half the entries aren't even linked. Inappropriate use of navbox - and I'd say the same for national championship templates as well. Resolute 16:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Even the national championship templates shouldn't exist per wp:embed which suggest only links that would already be on every page the navbox is included on should be in a navbox. Not every player on a team will be on each others page. -DJSasso (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:44, 15 November 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.

Nav boxes for non-nat'l championship teams (continued)

 * 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 as G7. NAC. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete templates for non-national championship winning football teams per consensus here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football Jweiss11 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I created these templates after seeing a similar effort made for the 2003 Kansas State Wildcats football team season page (Template:2003 Wildcats), but based on the aforementioned discussion agree that these are too much and should go away. I suppose that the 2003 KSU season template this started with should also be on the block. I don't know if there are others, have not looked for them. Fjbfour (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've listed the 2003 KSU template for deletion above. I haven't seen any other templates for non-nat'l champ teams other than those discussed here, but if I do, I will similarly list them for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 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.

Nav boxes for non-nat'l championship teams

 * 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 as G7. NAC. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete templates for non-national championship winning football teams per consensus here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football Jweiss11 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete see rationale above. Fjbfour (talk) 20:28, 9 November 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.

Aero engine templates

 * 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 per T3 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unused, redundant to the parent categories and not desired to be used. Noting that they were created undiscussed by a user (or users) that also created multiple non-article Indonesian interwiki links to many aero engine articles, these have been removed by a bot. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    08:49, 9 November 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:Incomplete

 * 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a pointless combination of expand and cleanup. See WP:IMPERFECT. Note that the 2005 discussion was essentially closed by redirecting this template to sectstub (the same as expand section nowadays). Most votes were for deletion. Not only has the template has been un-redirected (against consensus it seems), but it was also fully protected in its gory variant. This in itself causes presentation problems in articles where it was intended to be a section tag: see Camelopardalis, or Aries (constellation). Another editor also said the template with the current content/wording should be deleted in 2008: Template talk:Incomplete. (Although I'm not nominating it here, I find the generic expand pointless and obnoxious too, except for the smaller variant expand section, and I prefer more specific article-level templates like generalize or update with a reason given as more informative.) Tijfo098 (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC) "Expand could be used properly on a Featured Article with nothing wrong with it." Good luck with that. Let us know how quickly you get reverted. Agriculture and Articles of Confederation are not WP:Featured Articles, and those uses are in sections, so properly expand section.Tijfo098 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC) You do seem to want us to have templates with basically the same text but with different colors based on the severity of the issue. It's not an outlandish proposal, but it does not seem a practice widely adopted in Wikipedia. The color coding that the WP:AMBOX guideline suggests is based on a different criteria: what the message is about, not the severity of the problem. Now, AMBOX sees little attention, so it's entirely possible it does not fully reflect consensus, but this TfD is not the venue to change the guideline. If you want to propose a more general change to the guideline to allow for message boxes with the same text but different colors based on severity of the issue, please start a RfC. I would agree to suspend this TfD pending the outcome of a more general RfC on this matter, as long as it asks a question pertinent to this TfD. I hope the other participants here would also agree to that as well. See User talk:MSGJ for more on this. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to expand and fully protect duplicates the function of "expand" or "expand-section" 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems a good idea. thankfully produces the same non-intrusive result as expand section, so , which appears a common use case based on the sample I looked at (see above), will probably do the same if incomplete is redirected that way. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. On the contrary, this template is of the content type, unlike expand, which is of the notice type, and cleanup, which is of the style type. Content type templates indentify an issue concerning the content of the article. This template identifies that an article is incomplete, meaning that it omits important information. This is a more significant problem than the expand or cleanup templates would identify. Given this purpose, is there nonetheless a reason for deletion? --Bsherr (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a missing information template for that and also missing information non-contentious, both of which require the user to specify what's missing. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true, but missing information may indicate a problem smaller in scope than incomplete. It also suggests the information is missing from the lead, which may not be so in an incomplete article. Consider, for example, an article on the history of a given subject, in which the lead is fully developed, but the article abruptly stops halfway through the history. --Bsherr (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Something is always missing from an article, even from every Featured Article I've read. Look at Talk:Schizophrenia or Talk:Major depressive disorder. According to this template, I can just tag spam any article. As for the hypothetical example you give, how many articles are like that? This template is widely used for a different purpose. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This template is not for merely when something is missing from an article. It's a content template. By definition, it is for major problems with articles. Incomplete is supposed to be used when the incompleteness of the article is a major problem. You do agree that Expand is not appropriate for that purpose, right? If the template is being used wrong, if the documentation needs to be fixed, or if the message in the template needs improvement, we can deal with that. But deleting the template creates a serious gap in how we identify issues in articles. --Bsherr (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If an article is thus so incomplete, then it would be a stub, which would have a stub template. Or there are sect-stubs and incomplete just indicates that there are sect-stubs, making it redundant with having sect-stubs, which was declared redundant with expand-section... Or the scope of the intro and the article name does not match the content of the article, and the article requires renaming, and tweaking the intro, so this should be filed as a rename request? It just seems that incomplete is redundant with expand or "expand-section" or "stub", depending on what article it was placed on. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to expand. It's essentially the same thing. PC78 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If they're the same, should Template:Expand be changed to a content template, then? Or would it not be equivalent to redirect Template:Expand to Template:Incomplete? --Bsherr (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the WP:AMBOX guideline, "expand" should probably be orange, but that discussion can be carried on the talk page of expand and/or the guideline talk page because several of the "expand" templates are blue. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (article message boxes) Tijfo098 (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with changing expand to "content". It highlights an issue with the content of the article and explicitly asks for help in improving the article. It's not a "notice" template like (for example) recent death, which should be strictly informative without requiring any specific action. PC78 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not proposing it, I was merely posing it for sake of argument. Expand has always been treated as a template merely inviting and encouraging participation in writing content, not to identify a problem with an article. That's why it's a notice template. (It's a fluff template, really. That's why it's been proposed for deletion so often, and that's why it's existence is so contentious.) If you consider Expand and Incomplete to be the same, you are actually proposing a total change in the current consensus use of Expand, and I think it's a mistake to delete Incomplete before there is consensus that Expand should be used differently. --Bsherr (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But it does identify a problem with the article, albeit a rather general one. I'm not sure what this "current concenus" is that you refer to, I don't see any real distinction between incomplete and expand, and I don't see how changing expand from "notice" to "content" impacts on how the template is used. After all, all we're really changing is a colour. But this is mostly off topic, and better said at Template talk:Expand. PC78 (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not necessarily identify a problem with an article. You need to know something about the history of the Expand template. It was once linked to WP:RFE, the purpose of which was not to identify problem articles, but opportunities for new users to contribute. Expand could be used properly on a Featured Article with nothing wrong with it. Look at the alphabetically first two articles that transclude it, Agriculture and Articles of Confederation; the sections it labels are not problematic. It is the equivalent of a stub template on an article that is no longer a stub, and it is designed to encourage participation by suggesting ways a user could add to an article, regardless of the present quality of the article. Because many people believe that any article can be expanded, there have been RfCs on the appropriateness of this template, because many people believe it is unnecessary. It's not really a maintenance template. You can also see how the discussion played out at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 13. But characterizing it as a template that identifies a "major problem" (that's what content type means, according to the documentation at Ombox; you're not just changing the color, you're changing the meaning), is inconsistent with the majority of its present use. It's relevant here, because you're proposing that Incomplete should be deleted because it is redundant with Expand. If Incomplete is not redundant with Expand, because you misunderstand the purpose of Expand, than it should not be deleted. --Bsherr (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with just about everything you said above, but I'll comment below. PC78 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * J. R. R. Tolkien, then? --Bsherr (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or Economy of India? --Bsherr (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is probably a good indication that the articles no longer meet featured criteria. PC78 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Both use the tag on a section. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But this point about Agriculture and Articles of Confederation is that, while an Expand notice template would be appropriate, Incomplete or an Expand content template would not. To say that Incomplete is the same as Expand is an error. --Bsherr (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An article that requires expansion is incomplete, and an article that is incomplete requires expansion. These are not seperate issues, they are the exact same thing. I really do think that you're splitting hairs here, and I don't see the distinction that you're trying to make. A template that merely states the obvious is not constructive, but the purpose of each of these templates should be to identify a problem and encourage improvement, and that's why expand is not a notice. PC78 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still misunderstanding. Articles tagged with Template:Expand don't require expansion, expansion is merely suggested. If you disagree, why not redirect Template:Expand to Template:Incomplete? --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because incomplete is a poorly worded template that has struggled over time to find a purpose. It vacillated from being a redirect to sectstub to saying This article is incomplete and is confusing. This article or section may require cleanup and/or expansion. to the current combination. The info/content distinction that you hold so dear appears to have been a merely trivial decision after WP:AMBOX was ratified. The edit summary for adding the content type was "WP:TS, bitches" (marked as WP:MINOR). It also used to add articles to Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification for years after its text was changed away from the "confusing" wording. It was only changed to include articles in Category:Articles to be expanded this summer (just before it was fully protected). All of these historical details hint that it is an unfocused and little discussed template, not some paragon of grand planning of two severities of "expand", as you claim. I did not find any substantive discussion on the conceptual distinction you claim to exist between this and expand prior to this nomination. You appear to be advancing an idiosyncratic pet theory here, that is quite at odds with the WP:AMBOX guideline. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the soultion to improve instead of delete? This template isn't struggling to find a purpose. It's used deliberately and conscientiously on over a thousand articles. The info/content distinction, regardless of its history, is now foundational to these templates. I didn't invent it; it's documented at ambox! --Bsherr (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The solution is to improve Wikipedia by redirecting this template to another template everyone here (but yourself) deems similar enough. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is that, with only one template, there would be no way to distinguish an article that is problematically incomplete from a good article where suggestions for expansion have been made. Do you disagree? --Bsherr (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. The reason the two levels are unique to this situation is because Expand is unique on Wikipedia. Like I've been saying, if you really want to target the redundancy you see, your objection should be to Expand, the notice template, not Incomplete, the content template. If people are using Expand when they should be using Incomplete, we need to address that by making each template more distinct. Perhaps on the RfC you could explain why you think it's better to turn Expand into Incomplete by making it a content template and then deleting Incomplete, rather than just deleting Expand and replacing it with Incomplete as needed? --Bsherr (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to expand: if the article is genuinely "incomplete" then the obvious course is to "expand" it. If it instead requires "cleanup", then the appropriate cleanup templates should be used. I see no point for such a vague and equivocal template, that gives no indication which is required. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposal to suspend this TfD pending RfC outcome. There is now a vigorous discussion at Template talk:Expand about several related issues, including whether templates with the same text but different colors are desirable or not. It's not clear if the WP:AMBOX guideline still has consensus and/or if its wording really reflects all relevant practices on message box color coding. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with proposal: this template is equivocal and superfluous, regardless of the colour of expand tags. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, the inquiry at the RfC is about the entire scheme of templates covering this issue, not about what color they are. The question is, do we distinguish the tags for suggestions for expansion from incomplete articles needing to be finished. Either you think we only need one tag for both purposes, or you think we need two. And if you think we need one, should Incomplete or Expand be deleted? It would be much more convenient to discuss it in one place. If consensus here is is one way, and then the later consensus at the RfC is the other, the later consensus will control, anyway, so there's no purpose in continuing here. --Bsherr (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bsherr, your "proposal" does not propose changing any of "the entire scheme of templates covering this issue" (itself an exaggeration, there are only 5 templates involved), it only proposes a justification for the status quo (blue expand templates). This does not change the fact that the template being proposed for deletion here is a mere equivocation between expand ("...needs expansion...") and cleanup ("...or cleanup.") (or some, more specific cleanup template). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to answer you here or at the RfC? I would like not to do both, please. --Bsherr (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * [Shrugs] You were the one insisting on 'disagreeing with my disagreement' here. Answer me wherever you like -- it is unlikely to change my opinion that this template is a useless equivocation between two other, already extant, templates. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But you don't disagree that it's undesirable to split the conversation between the RfC and this TfD? --Bsherr (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * [Shrugs again] It was Tijfo098 who made this an issue here, not myself (and yourself who has continued it as an issue). And this issue is already smeared across two further talkpages. I am therefore relatively indifferent to the undesirability of a split. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then might we agree to determine what to redirect as a part of the RfC instead of here? --Bsherr (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I would not agree. I am indifferent as to whether your proposal gets discussed solely on template talk or also on here. I am not indifferent, and am in fact opposed (as I stated above), to deferring the decision of this TfD to discussion of that proposal. I would however suggest that, at this late stage, neither of us are likely to persuade the other on this TfD, your proposal, or suspension, so that (short of any major new insights), further discussion is unproductive. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support proposal. The idea that the same issue should be closed at TfD while it is obviously being discussed elsewhere in an RfC initiated by the nominator (and proposer of this proposal to discontinue) is manifestly inefficient. This is a clear IAR closure. --Bsherr (talk) 08:06, 15 November 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.