Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 15



Template:Blekko

 * 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) 00:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)



Completely unnecessary template - not used in any articles, doesn't appear to have any real use. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no foreseeable use;not used;only created for the purpose of formatting "blekko"Curb Chain (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be a vanity template that only exists for a single company and would never be used more than once, rendering it pointless as a template. It is more about brand enforcement than contributing positively to Wikipedia. Using this template where the word "Blekko" appears would make any article with multiple instances distracting and would cause similar visual disruption to overlinking. --Mrmatiko (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

" Should I take the T3 reference to mean that there's another template with the same functionality; I'm not sure I understand the deprecated or orphaned template part unless that's just the fact that I haven't used it outside of my User-space yet? I'm generally planning on including this template elsewhere; although I'm still developing the concept (but I can explain if desired). My thought was just to avoid duplicating the formatting style throughout in other places and I am reasonably confident that this template will remain relatively unchanged so I went ahead an put it into the active article namespace as a template right off. As to substituting; my thoughts were that transcluding style and link info was preferable to repeating it throughout various articles; or is it in fact preferable to repeat code rather than make recurring transclusions? Alternatively I can move the template to the user namespace until I am ready to move everything to the main article space or I can repeatedly hard-code the formatting/link, etc throughout if that's better. I'm fairly new to this so please just LMK your thoughts of "proper" WP procedure in this regard. Thx. "
 * Couldn't care less -- The response to the original deletion message on my talk page was:
 * Was planning on using the same format in multiple other places so, on the basis of modular coding, I put it in a standardized template. Don't care, will code individually; had the original response to the initial deletion nomination been read and responded too there never would have been any need for anyone to waste their time with this here.  Any one of you, feel free to answer the questions asked in the initial reply, as repeated above, or don't; whatever.  -- Who R you? (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the template appears to be solely for promotional/brand enforcement purposes and will cause problems with readability of articles where it is used. Is this template actually contributing to improving Wikipedia rather than promotion?--Mrmatiko (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I simply created it because I expected to use it in several places and it seemed like more efficient coding. Having started used this search engine just recently, having found reference to it in a WP article about search engines, it appears to me to have several advantages over Google which I thought were particularly well suited to Wikipedia editors.  The blekko search engine firstly doesn't return datafarms or spam sites, unlike Google or Yahoo/Bing, it allows customization of search refinements so, unlike Googles News category, it would actually be possible to set it up to filter out unreliable sources, it already has search criteria (through the use of "slashtags") for colleges/universities which seemed to me to be something that we would probably like to be able to search and which would be (to my knowledge) impossible to do with Google; and, what made me interested in using them as a search engine in the first place, they offer privacy options which allow me to opt out of having a permanent record maintained of my IP and every search and click I ever make (something which I have always found offensive about Google and which Yahoo, now that they use Bing(Microsoft) as their search engine, maintains as well).  That's why I personally started using it and it seemed to have advantages which I thought perhaps all WP editors might find useful, but I certainly hadn't gotten to the point where I had figured out what if anything I was going to say, or how or where or to whom, so I had just created this template and then I got the delete notice later that day.


 * I haven't done a damned thing more about it cause, given the events of the last couple of days, I'm really caring less and less; thus my message, if it get's deleted, no skin off my nose. My only intention was to have it there to make it easier for discussions with editors.  I can't really see it being used on many (if any) article pages except perhaps the blekko page, but if other editors thought it was as potentially advantagous as I, then the template might be commonly used behind the scenes in talk/user pages.  But like I said, it's not making very much difference to me at this point.  But if you have any questions I am more that willing to explain further as appropriate.  The entire extent of my promotion of it is this: it looks to me like it might have some advantages.


 * The rest of the matter has only been the fact that the entire response which I received to creating a template that I thought was the right way to go, receiving a delete notice, responding on my talk page, on the template talk page, and putting a TalkBack notice on the nominator's page and, as per the explicit text (See the on my talk page) of the original deletion notice I received availing myself of the option to remove the deletion template (with a very clear note in the edit summary why I was doing so and that I'd move or delete the template as discussion indicated was proper), the response I received was another msg saying that I might be banned from editing for removing the delete notice.  My response to all threats is (pardon my language and addressed to no one in particular) "Fuck you".  If anyone (Mrmatiko or otherwise) want's to talk, cool, if not, fine; I'm a big boy, I'll decide what I decide when I decide it; it's really not that important.  But thank you Mrmatiko for actually speaking to me, I believe that's a first in 3 days and half a dozen posts (on this issue alone).  — Who R you? (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with this template is that it doesn't really seem to have a purpose other than changing the style of the text, this makes it appear to be promotional rather than practical. I don't think there would be so much of a problem if the template was similar to template:google, which is used for producing Google search results for use on talk pages e.g. by ip editors on the talk page of a protected page. If this template had similar functionality & was explicitly not for use within articles then it would potentially be more likely to be accepted as there is a clear purpose (though if deletion was requested then "the google template exists" wouldn't be a valid keep reason. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had considered that some use of optional parameters could trigger searches (similar to the Template:Google's functionality); but, as stated in response to the initial deletion request, at the time I was "&hellip; still developing the concept &hellip;" and hadn't really come to any cogent concept of what is the most appropriate form of use and format of options, or even how or when such use might be called for. Given that, once implemented and used by others it'd be a problem to alter parameter usage, it seemed most right to postpone that decision (perhaps until affected by input from others).  In the meantime, I just had the template jump to the blekko article, not seeing anyone being adversely affected by losing such functionality (if that did in fact happen).  I hadn't looked to discover that Template:Google existed; its existence perhaps establishing a standard to be generally continued regarding form & options.  I'll give this some more thought over the next day or so; and, if I'm happy with the concept, I'll code it up to allow you folks to consider if that affects your votes.  I hadn't foreseen an urgency in finalizing this as I don't assume any competing call for the template name; but I see there is now a deadline so I'll work on bringing it to a fuller concept quickly rather than having to reconsider this template again in future.  I'll post another note here once I've added functionality.  — Who R you? (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What you should have done is instead of bringing this live, you should have created the template with utility, so others would not propose it for deletion. What I mean by "bringing this live" is creating this in templatespace instead of userspace:  What you could have done is created this in a sandbox/subpage of your userpage, and when it was useful, you could have moved it to templatespace to make it "live".  Because this was not done, a basically useless template was created in templatespace, it was expeditiously proposed for deletion.  This is the deadline you are talking about, but there is no deadline in userspace:  Even if this template gets deleted, you can recreate it in your userspace.Curb Chain (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘

Actually, I did initially create this concept framework in my sandbox areas, creating it modularly for reasons mentioned, and then I used it in a page, also within my sandbox which I hadn't yet moved to the main article space. When I was finally ready to move the page to the mainspace, I first moved the blekko template, as I said figuring that there would be no competition for the name and not realizing that a certain level of functionality was needed at the initial stage I was at on it. I figured that the expansion of its functionality would simply occur at some indeterminate future time and it never occurred to me that anyone would particularly care about the template. Hindsight being 20/20, if I'd put some note indicating that I intended to add further functionality at some future time, perhaps deletion never would have come up; just one more thing that never occurred to me at the time.

I was actually messing around with trying to move the other page to the mainspace, attempting to make it a subpage since I had forgotten that subpages are disabled in the mainspace, and it was while I was attempting to move that page, which I did anticipate some level of problems and complaints about, that I received the deletion notice, which it never dawned on me could have issue. I can accept the quasi-policy on equivalent to stub templates as justifiable given the potential of countless unless templates; I simply hadn't expected a requirement of any particular stage of completeness, beyond perhaps a lack of errors, before "bringing it live", but I get it. Meanwhile, I've been dealing with responses to an AN/I (unrelated) and its related deletion discussion so I still haven't done anything on this yet. The other page (not an article but maybe or maybe not appropriate to link from another article -- linking to it from an article, thus providing it to users to view, would involve questions of modification of the current form of the page), is Spelling: anti&minus;Semitic vs antisemitic which remains in the userspace right now; (only two or three or four things at a time is apparently to be my motto). Anyways, I'll now turn to looking at the Google template and see what I see; I appreciate that I could take it back to my userspace and let it be deleted here and then reintroduce it later with full functionality, but I'm generally more of a just get it over with kinda guy. As mentioned I'll post here when there's more to template. — Who R you? (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is going to be offtoipc, but concering Spelling: anti-Semitic vs antisemitic, is that the an article that you plan to publish ("make live")?Curb Chain (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was primarily thinking for linking to the talk page for antisemitism and, if I BOLDed the "spelling correction" on that or any other pages (but given the sensitivity surrounding the entire topic, more likely following discussion or at least a few days after a talk page post rather than Boldly changing), and then to link to talk pages of anything else updated, just to attach a complete thought without putting reams of stuff on one or more talk pages.
 * If post&minus;discussion it made sense to link the page I created for users to access, as backup and a separate talk page to discuss the spelling topic, a lot of changes to form would likely be needed first, and issues re:copyright and whether it was WP:OR, etc would need to be resolved before linking/going live. — Who R you? (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've copied your question and my response above to the talk page on Spelling:&hellip; (still in the userspace) so we can avoid doing a long off&minus;topic here. — Who R you? (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Functionality has (finally) been added to the template. I hope some of you will now vote to keep.  — Who R you? (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you removed the formatting I think that can be considered.Curb Chain (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Explanation said everything. Mike  2  8  9  20:43, 15 August 2011 (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:Infobox 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 Speedy delete. Clear test page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

pointless. 76.113.124.50 (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete not used anywhere;useless;as nomCurb Chain (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2011 (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:Cleanup-link rot

 * 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 Massive snowball keep. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Koavf, as it seems that several people see the tag as completely useless. I personally have no opinion on the matter. –MuZemike 01:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * this tag is plenty useful. a complaint of mass tagging doesn't mean the tag should be deleted. probably it just means that there are an awful lot of pages with bare links that need to be fixed. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 02:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Make message more discreet and/or move it off the top of articles. We do not need thousands of articles damned with a big banner screaming in bold just because -- horror -- someone linked to a bare URL. 109.153.232.146 (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Template is fine as is I see this tag as very useful in it's current state. I'm all for maintaining the status quo.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems like a rather pointy nomination, based on a fundamental misreading of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * People are obviously complaining about the uselessness of the tag at the ANI discussion, but yet it seems the same people want to keep it around. I see a double-standard here; using the tag on articles is invariably going to cause complaints, but then why have the tag other when to just yell at people when anybody actually uses it? –MuZemike 03:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the use of the template, it's the manner of the use. It's quite similar, in fact, to the case of Delta, whose actions were within policy, but who did them in a way that was disruptive. I would ask you to point me to a comment on the ANI discussion which said or implied that the template should be deleted, because I don't believe there are any.  All the comments there were about (1) Koavf's automated mass-tagging instead of fixing bad links and (2) the size and placement of the template.  There was no discussion whatsoever about deleting it, and to describe it as such is a misrepresentation, I believe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - How is it not useful? It's to alert people that bare URLs are prone to link rot, and to encourage them to fix them. If it's a matter of being too visible on the page, why not move the template down to the External links section? Lachlanusername (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously. And I did exactly what was suggested above--somehow, that didn't appease my detractors. Either keep it and apply it, or delete it and ignore WP:LINKROT, but don't split the difference. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The template is useful in finding pages with bare URLs that can be improved with the use of full citations. If the prominence of the notice produced by the template is an issue, then the template should be modified.  It doesn't follow that it has no use and should be deleted. Gnu andrew (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and create alternate visually smaller version (shameless plug). Its usefulness in adding articles to Category: Articles needing link rot cleanup is of paramount importance to the ongoing task of making references verifiable: Source titles, dates, publishers and authors are essential to this task. Plus, as a superhero wikignome, I need all the help I can get, fighting my long-time nemesis Link Rotty, the bastard. --Lexein (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. Debresser (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the template and keep using it. My76Strat (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the template, but if not then move it to the references section. It's useful to alert Wikipedians to fix the sources, which not only helps prevent link rot (a loss of source information) but makes the page look better with correct sourcing. The tool in the link is very useful too. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue to use. It's unattractive, but if it helps prod people into doing the job properly, it's worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue existing recommended use and/or hide from readers who are not logged in. If you're looking for a truly pointless template to TfD, go take a look at empty section. This one however, has a rather useful purpose. -- WikHead (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but move away from top of article - it is not a useful comment or warning for the reader of an article (unlike unref, pov etc). Either add to talk page, or place in the References section. It's a useful template, and I add it regularly to stubs while stub-sorting, to prompt the editor who created the article - and who probably has it on their watch list -  to please come back and sort out their references, but I'm not happy with its current prominence in the articles.  Thinking about it, the same goes for orphan: not useful or interesting for the reader, as opposed to any editor, so ought to be further down the article or on the talk page.  Pam  D  11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The one thing which would help most here is not shrinking, deleting or moving the template: it's tying it to a bot which could rapidly run Reflinks on the page, which catches the majority of bare-URL linkrot automatically. The pieces are mostly in place for this: we just need someone to step up the the plate and implement it. I'd oppose any other changes at this time as they all seem to be driven by a basic dislike of the tagging system, a system which still enjoys very broad support at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe Reflinks was originally a bot routine that got ported to a tool. Probably a good idea because it still requires human interaction to always get a perfect score. -- WikHead (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's as may be, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. If it is only invoked on pages which are tagged with linkrot, rather than wandering as it pleases, a bot should be minimally disruptive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As one of the ones suggesting "other changes", I would counter the suggestion that this is driven by a "basic dislike of the tagging system". Tagging is fine, but the prominence of the message needs to be in proportion to the problem. Proliferations of HUGE and IN YOUR FACE banners at the top of articles tend to make everything look broken and useless. This is fine if an article really is broken and useless, but the odd bare URL is such a trivial matter that a small and discreet tag is surely the maximum that is needed. 86.160.84.240 (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The odd bare URL" should not be a cause for a tag in the first place. All tagging is at editor discretion, and editors should know better than to tag when the opportunity cost of simply fixing the problem is low. That same argument applies to pretty much any tag, which is why making it here is pointless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it (see discussion linked at top), the whole reason why this discussion was started was because of indiscriminate automated edits that were "defacing" large numbers of articles for relatively minor "bare URL" issues. In other words, no, or virtually no "editor discretion", was being applied. (I have not previously been involved in any of that discussion; I just glanced through it to try to get the gist.) 86.160.84.240 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Can we please WP:SNOW this one? The discussion notice is annoying. and all further discussions could and should be taken to the template's talk page. --Muhandes (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2011 (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.