Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 28



Template:Latin alphabet inclusion

 * 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) 03:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Latin alphabet inclusion

Deprecated for several months and not in use. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * delete indeed. I rebuild a month ago and made this one deprecated (superfluous). See that template and its subpages for a current version. No disturbances met these weeks. -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – Unused, deprecated template. — mc10 ( t / c ) 21:53, 29 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:PD-Non-Commercial-Reference

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PD-Non-Commercial-Reference

License template that violates WP:NONCOM. Kelly hi! 15:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per T2: Unambiguous misrepresentation of policy. There is no such thing as public domain with restriction. If something is public domain, then it has no restriction. On the other hand, if the author meant to grant a non-commercial permission (similar to that of CC-BY-NC), this template is misleading since non-commercial licenses fall within the purview of Non-free content criteria policy. (Information: This only applies to Wikipedia. It may or may not apply to Wikimedia Commons.) Fleet Command (talk) 16:30, 28 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:Fictional

 * 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 per T2: Template that unambiguously misrepresents established policy. Deleted by Athaenara.
 * Fictional

A disclaimer template, disallowed per prior consensus. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nominator is quite right. See No disclaimers in articles. Fleet Command (talk) 16:32, 28 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:Dftt

 * 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) 03:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dftt

Unused user page template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy not neededCurb Chain (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy is probably the best choice, though the editor is retired. — mc10 ( t / c ) 21:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused templates need a strong case. If the user isn't active, then by default it hasn't a case. Lightmouse (talk) 17:09, 1 September 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:Cultural Heritage RU

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 19:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cultural Heritage RU

A floating box whose purpose would be better served by a standard external link. The page linked from the template returns a 404 error. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * delete, although not due to the misunderstood 404 error, which is due to the lack of an "id=" parameter being passed to the php script. This website does work, see here, but we don't need the floating box. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 7 September 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:Astray

 * 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 Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Astray

This is a fairly high use help desk template I created and it's quite useful when used properly. Unfortunately, it is being used improperly quite a lot—I would say well more than half of the time. It is intended to address help desk post where, from something revealed in the question, there's a real indication the person thinks we are affiliated with the subject of an article they've seen, thinks we are the official site of the topic they read about or similar misunderstandings. Classic examples: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6. It happens far more often than you might think if you're not a regular there. However, what it is being used for very often is posts that are misplaced at the help desk, which properly belong at the reference desk, but which have none of the hallmarks of the type of lost person whose post this is intended to address. We already have templates that direct people to the reference desk, which should be used much of the time when this is being used instead (RD1 RD2 RD3). At this point I think the negatives of its misuse outweigh its benefits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This can be handled in other ways. No need to delete a good template because it sometimes gets misused.  Perhaps an editnotice, or when someone misapplies it, you could educate them by reminding them on their user talk page and striking up a nice conversation with them.  -- Jayron  32  03:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I have disliked this template since I first saw it (although I have used it occasionally). The impersonal, inappropriate use of this template means it often does more harm than good.  If anything, editors can use a more personal message in the future.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's sometimes used inappropriately but I don't think the problem is serious enough to delete an often useful template. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename! This TfD has made me realise that the one time I've used this template, I used it inappropriately, for the reason described by Fuhghettaboutit.  I guess my thinking went something like this: This question doesn't belong at the help desk... This person's in the wrong place... They're astray... Hey we have a template called that!  So maybe I wouldn't have made that mistake if the template's name more accurately reflected its intended purpose.  I suggest renaming it Unaffiliated, and leaving no redirect from Astray.  That way, there'd be no way to invoke the template without being made conscious of what is implied by its use. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What about a complete rewrite of the template? It would begin with a message about how the question being asked was unsuitable for the help desk.  It could then point to a series of useful areas like the reference desks.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The template serves a purpose and I think does it well as written, it's just that people aren't parsing it and the question they are sticking it on to see whether it applies. We already have the three RD templates that cover most other situations, and seem to fit with what you think the rewrite would achieve. Regarding renaming, I think the name is apt. People should, and I think most people do learn what a template says by reading it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayron32. I know I use it fairly frequently, so please come and talk to me if you see me using it incorrectly. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thought: This would be a better nomination if it included examples of the template being misused. This nomination proposes deletion but actually demonstrates that it is a good template and gives plenty of examples of cases where it could have been (and probably was) usefully used. AndyJones (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to single people out. Just go to a few days of the help desk archives and use your computer's find function to search for "I suspect, based on your question" (I suggest this way because the search function for the archives does not work well for reasons unknown). Here Help desk/Archives/2011 July 8. It is used three times on that day, all incorrectly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but I see very little harm done by Astray in these cases. Templates in the RD1 series would've been more concise and specific, but Astray still explained what the helpdesk is for and linked to the reference desk, so the questioners still got the information they needed. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The template efficiently addresses a clear need - visitors who arrive at Wikipedia, perhaps as a result of having used a search engine, and mistake the article about some organization for the organization's official site. The questions they ask may confuse Help desk volunteers by having no relation to Wikipedia at all, and by using vague pronouns ("you" and "your") as if the question addresses Wikipedia. Due to Wikipedia's high placement in search engine results, the problem is unlikely to go away. Before we had the template, these types of questions were harder for Help desk volunteers to answer extemporaneously. If some Help desk volunteers misuse the template, we can correct them - the template is mostly used by a relatively small number of people, who use it repeatedly (so clearing up its use with one user fixes potentially many future uses of the template). The template documentation could be a bit more explicit that the template is for questioners who are probably astray from some site unrelated to Wikipedia, not for questioners who are merely astray within Wikipedia. For the latter users, one of the Reference desk templates will usually be superior. The existing template documentation does indicate this but could do so a bit more directly. --Teratornis (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As this essay explains, the fact that some people dislike something is not in itself a reason for deletion. The fact that the template is overused does not mean that it does not have a valid use. There are many plausible alternatives to deletion that have already been brought up. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 18:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - perfectly appropriate template when used properly. Misuse by some is not a reason to delete. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – It's a fairly useful template to redirect users that believe that "we know everything", essentially. — mc10 ( t / c ) 21:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - people find it useful, therefore it should be kept. S Larctia (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - While I think it is often useful to have handy templates for repeating things at the help desk, in this case the person replying should come up with a self formulated answer addressing the specific points of the question or why he/she thinks the question is inappropriate at the help desk. This template way too much cries for being slapped down on the first sign that a question might not belong at the help desk. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider renaming. It's a useful and appropriate response to questions meant for the subject of an article, such as "when is the next bus tour" (of wherever the questioner had been reading about). Certes (talk) 14:05, 6 September 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.