Wikipedia talk:Template locations

Initial comments
Sorry but right now this is too simplistic. You should give examples of which templates you are talking about. The intro is rather inappropriate so I will change that now. Lastly, I think this is more under the remit of WP:TS, but it may well be useful as part of an information-gathering exercise. violet/riga (t) 13:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We should also discuss this issue furth before having a vote. Polls are always a last resort. There is currently a debate at Village pump (policy), we should at least let that run its course before turning to a poll. - SimonP 13:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then at least add your arguments to the page. violet/riga (t) 13:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's main issue is not that articles do not get expanded rapidly enough, we create quality content at a rate greater than anything in history. Our problem is not that COTW or AID get too little attention, both are quite successful. As our greatest challenge is gaining respect and credibility as an encyclopedia. Our readers, who vastly out number us editors, do not expect to see articles dotted with messages to its editors. Bunches of boxes turn what are well formatted and professional looking pages into jumbled messes, that again turn off readers. None of this, of course, applies to templates like NPOV or cleanup, our readers just as much as our editors should know when a page is substandard. - SimonP 14:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is one of the main principles of Wikipedia to get readers involved in editing articles. Bunches of boxes looking a mess are going to encourage them to edit articles.     14:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that any of the templates makes the pages seem substandard. If anything, it shows that the articles receive constant improvement, and is very informative about what is happening or could happen with the article. <> Who? ¿ ?  14:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree we should let discussion run its course before taking more drastic action. So would SimonP care to explain why he/she is not letting the discussion take place before he unilaterally moves the expansion template from articles to their talk pages???? 14:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point in discussing why notices were previously moved. --sparkit (talk) 14:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Now that there are several templates on the discussion, do we vote seperately and have a seperate discussion on each? <> Who? ¿ ? 14:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hang on, Ill sort this out.     14:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * While some people might have global opinions on the issue, and there might also be advantages to having a general policy in this area. It should also be possible to discuss these individually, so some mechanism will have to be established. We should probably also wait and see exactly which of these templates are still disputed. - SimonP 14:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Article types
As per the new WP:TS suggestion, I think templates should be grouped as per their usage. It is undeniable that some templates should appear in the article and others on the talk page, and I think this should be voted on per grouping. The two I would see as being under discussion here are maintenance templates and dispute templates. My proposal is currently that both appear on the article page, with the latter being basically the same as they are right now and the former being very much minimised. I think that is a partial compromise. violet/riga (t) 14:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added an example design, taken from my proposal. Obviously the white box around the image would be removed. violet/riga (t) 14:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That does look nice, it might need to reference requests for expansion though .     14:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree on the basics. Dispute templates should remain unchanged, and some standardization is needed. I would make the maintenance templates even less visible, more like listdev, expandsect, and the stub templates. Similar to the stubs I would also place them at the bottom of the article. I think there is also a third class not covered by your system: Wikiproject templates, such as CSBArticles DrugsNotice. I think current consensus is that these belong on the talk page, but there has been significant debate in the past. I'm not sure where collaboration templates such as COTW and AID fit into your system, they are not really maintenance templates. I personally would see them as closer to a Wikproject templates.- SimonP 14:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the COTW-templates, that is COTW for the main two collaborations of the week and AID for the improvement drive are different from maintenance or any other class of templates, such as dispute templates. They are closer to Project-templates, but they stay on nowhere near as long. (Varies from one week to about four weeks, but most nominations are eliminated after the first week.) Also note that there are about 20 other much smaller COTWs (and right now they are booming, many new ones have been created during the past weeks). So this is really a category of our own. On the one hand, to give each of them a distinguished identity, it is important that one COTW differs from another (like in layout, some voting procedures, etc.), but as far as the positioning of templates is concerned (which is relevant here), we should all have uniform practice, I think. The main purpose of these templates is a sort of advertising to communicate to come to the project page and vote.--Fenice 20:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Simply make a new section for all sub-COTW templates if it is not together with the others. Falphin 20:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a new subsection. Whatever the outcome is for the COTWs listed should apply to all others. All I am saying is they don't go into the same category as any other template. The COTWs are a template class of their own.--Fenice 20:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not sure on CSBArticles DrugsNotice. I think with better wording, they would be fine one the article pages. As they are now, they are not very reader friendly, only meaning they may not understand about Wiki projects and our policies. Do not see any inherit harm by using them on article pages now though, as they would be rarely seen on the talk pages. <> Who? ¿ ?  14:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

About the poll
I think the poll is premature. Besides the custom that polls should be a last resort, there has apparently been no discussion or determination of specifics such as how long the poll would run or the numerical basis for determining a "winner." Maurreen 20:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Essentially, creating this poll was the only way to get SimonP to stop unilaterally transferring (by about 50 articles per hour) templates from article to talk pages, before consensus has been obtained to do so. It is notable that his change does not appear to be supported by the community in the current state of votes. 22:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * He was not transferring them (which would not really have been that big a problem) he was deleting them.--Fenice 06:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Compromise?
I'd like to suggest at least a temporary compromise: Bottom of the article pages. Maurreen 20:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd actually rather they be on the talk pages than the bottom of the article pages. But top of the article pages still makes the most sense. Juppiter 15:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not going to work for some templates.
 * E.g. expansion - it works for the article as a whole, but if it is a single section desired to be expanded then this information is lost.
 * And NPOV and related templates definitely belong at the top.
 * I support this compromise, the bottom of the article has worked for years with stub templates. - SimonP 18:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sub-COTWs
I posted the comment on the COTW section but in case it isn't seen I'm going to place it here to. Does that section include Sub-COTWs(ex:UKCOTF,BCOTW,PLCOTW, etc.). If it does then the section should be made more clear if it doesn't then I believe we should create another combined one for those templates. Falphin 20:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I lean toward treating COTW, AID and the sub-COTW the same. Maurreen 21:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that more important than the outcome of this vote is the same rules for all COTWs. So I moved this here, and clarified that the AID template belongs to one of the smaller COTWs. The discriminating voters are informed to come and object.--Fenice 06:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Deryck C, one of the users who has supported the COTW-templates on article page but has not indicated any preference on the AID-template, has answered on my talk page: "...the policies done on COTW should also be done on AID because they're of similar nature.", he gives further details for his reasoning on my talk-page and on the talk-page of the COTWs.--Fenice 09:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

 * 1) See Template talk:Unreferenced and Template:Edcomment for reasoning. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) This template is about a Wikipedia internal process, and doesn't bear on the content of the article itself. --FOo 17:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Completely useless to readers. r3m0t talk 17:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a Wikipedia-internal process. --Carnildo 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Metadata belongs on talk pages →Raul654 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) -ZeWrestler 22:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Avoid self-references. This is a Wikipedia status designation. -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Templates that are for Wikipedia editors and are not for the casual Wikipedia user should only be on the Talk pages of the articles. Blank Verse  ∅  08:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Belong in Articles ONLY

 * 1)     14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) <> Who<font color=#00Ff00>? <font color=#FF00FF>¿ <font color=#0033FF>?  14:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --sparkit (talk) 14:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC) . With proposed minimised look.
 * 4) Fenice 15:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Chris 73 Talk 16:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) For my reasoning here and here (archived here) (I'm sorry if I'm making you read all this but the discussions are relevant). Falphin 18:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment
I am the one who will be posting this template most of the times. This template is quite different from the others listed here in that it is only on about twenty articles at a time, and stays there for ten days on average. It shows the reader as well as the editor that problems have been identified and that we know that the article needs improvement.--Fenice 15:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Please note that this template is not an "editorial comment", but an invitation for readers and contributors to vote. The template can be viewed by clicking on the heading of this section.--Fenice 16:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Early tally, etc.
Current tally (in the form of talk page - article page):


 * Expansion 3-7-0
 * Reqimage 3-5-0
 * AID 3-6-0
 * COTW 2-6-0
 * featured 1-8-0
 * Limitedgeographicscope 0-7-1
 * CSBArticles 2-6
 * POV check 2-7-0
 * Listdev 0-7-0
 * DrugsNotice 1-4-1
 * Album 3-3

Total: 20-66

So far, other than the "Album" template, the voters prefer using article pages by at least a 2-1 ratio. This suggests to me that, overall, these have little controversy. To work toward consensus, I think we'd be better off with a discussion along the lines of how to make templates better overall, less distracting to general readers, etc. Maurreen 20:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I updated to include other votes. And should the delete/don't use votes also be counted? Falphin 21:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see either way. I started to do that, then just decided to count it the simplest way for me at the time. Part of my point is that maybe this page is trying to do too much at a time. And the deletion votes are probably better brought up at WP:TFD. Maurreen 21:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting,at the rate we are going it is going to be 50-50-0 or 40-50-10 on most of the sections. No consensus presents a very odd result of everybody doing what they want. Falphin 22:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with people being allowed to do what they want. But it is important to note that such a result does not allow people to unilaterally mass-move templates from articles to talk pages.     23:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My issue is that it could be a source of edit conflict. Falphin 23:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement
I'm not sure where's the best place to write this, but maybe ...
 * 1) There should be a limit on the number of templates that appear at the top of any given article.
 * 2) There is a way to consolidate a few templates to avoid cluttering pages -- for example, one template could list multiple types of warnings.
 * 3) Some of the individual templates should be slimmed down. Maurreen 21:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not simply a case of article/talk page
I've worked on the Template standardisation/article proposal quite a bit now and have come up with the framework for the competition. The reasoning is that I don't see the argument as being as simple as article/talk page location. I would support placing some designs of certain templates on the article page, but not others.

This is interesting to find an idea about what people would want, but I think that giving people the chance to come up with template designs and positions (top of the article, bottom-right of the article, on the talk page, etc.) gives a lot more freedom and is more likely to come up with a consensual solution. violet/riga (t) 00:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Corollary
Both DrugsNotice and album serve to tell that 'this article is part of that wikiproject'. By extension, assuming identical consensus is reached on both of them, the same consensus should apply to any template that tags an article as part of a wikiproject. I believe this to be common sense, but in case people disagree I've listed it on the voting page anyway. Please comment. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * This vote is somewhat malformed. Very similar templates should have been voted on in groups, e.g. there is no reason COTW and AID should be in different locations, and it is also clear that all WikiProjects deserve to be treated equally. This is why the survey guidelines state that discussion should occur before a poll is held, which was not true in this case. - SimonP 13:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I specifically opened the voting to force discussion to take place, as you were previously quite clearly acting unilaterally without consensus, by mass moving templates from articles to talk pages at a rate of 50 per hour. 19:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Unresolved problems
This poll is lacking both a closing date and what percentage is required for a result to be considered valid. Either a closing date in a month or so should be added, or we should be clear that this is one of those eternal polls, like that at Talk:Georgia. Without a declared threshold we should assume the standard 70% threshold is needed before anything becomes policy. However, at this point nothing except listdev and the two Wikiprojects are showing a clear consensus. Some though thus needs to go into what happens when the result is ambiguous. Do we leave it up to the person placing the template? (an option that seems to be almost universally opposed) Or do we maintain the status quo? (but in certain cases, such as expansion and reqimage it is not clear what the status quo was prior to this debate) - SimonP 18:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would favour this being a straw poll before the proper WP:TS second phase comes in, which is about ready to commence. violet/riga (t) 18:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of these templates are already, or in the case of Expansion and reqimage were until recently, already standardized to the TS talk page format. Will the new TS standards include some mechanism of figuring out which templates follow what standard? - SimonP 18:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the case of reqimage, it was proposed before the TS was imposed on it, I just incorporated the coffee rolled version into the proposal, after it had been changed. You can check the history of the template, if it matters.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  05:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's as simple as "appears in the article or appears on the talk page". Some designs and locations, I think, would be fine on the article page, whereas others I would personally deem too ugly.  My idea is to have a range of options for each category (ie., maintenance templates, warning templates) which would be voted on.  For example, for the maintenance templates there may be the following options:
 * Large red box centred and at the top of the article
 * Small grey box at the top right of the article
 * Simple plain text and the bottom of the article
 * CoffeeRoll talk page standard


 * A vote would then determine which option appears best. In that case I would probably be against options 1 and 3 but find 2 and 4 acceptable.  violet/riga (t) 19:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Another option, which might come closer to consensus, is the small gray box, linking to a notice on the Talk page. My concern about putting many of these on the talk page is that I will never know they exist. Most of these tags mean: "Some of the discussion on the Talk page is not routine." Septentrionalis 23:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to post a "me too" notice, but I agree with Violetriga. Many template which I do not want to be used on the article page, would be okay for me to put there if they were made a lot let obtrusive, e.g. as an appriopriately linked icon of size less than 1cm². -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I, too, favor considering this a straw poll. It feels to me that pros, cons and policy issues are still being raised, and early votes were cast before considerations were presented -- that this survey is still in the info gathering stage. -->>sparkit| TALK << 19:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable, let's just let this poll run until the new standards are ready. In the interim we should use the information gathered here to work out a decent method of grouping templates so that we don't have to go through them one at a time. We can also use this poll to find areas where no further discussion is needed, for instance it seems fairly clear that the longstanding policy of having WikiProject templates on talk pages does not need to be revised. - SimonP 23:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Since it affects so much of wikipedia, I feel that the closing of the poll would only be appropriate after at least 100 total (valid - i.e. non-sockpuppet) votes. 20:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Standardized Templates
This poll won't produce any results as we'll never get a 70-30 or 30-70 on almost all of these templates. As far as the proposals go I don't think it really changes a whole lot either as it just declares where a few templates go, and what color, and size they are. I believe the entire system should be simplified as I originally proposed under my proposal. Every thing could be clearly defined under a category, and all templates in the category has one or two possible places. I know this is a bit of a ramble but what do you all think? Falphin 23:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Removal of templates or end of poll
Someone posed the question of the length of this debate, and now some templates are being removed. I am all for updating the template locations, but think that the discussion should at least be actually marked as closed, before any more template removals. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 05:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe you meant "close the poll"? I see no need to close the discussion. Maurreen 06:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, sorry, I tend to call voting → discussions, since we technically don't vote. :)  But yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying for me.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  06:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll close it. Maurreen 06:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I am re-opening it. It hasn't even had a week yet. 

Questionable maintenance templates
Does anyone else see insufficient value in the following?
 * 1) Expansion
 * 2) Reqimage
 * 3) Limitedgeographicscope Maurreen 07:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see sufficient value in the Expansion and Reqimage templates. What may not be obvious is that both of these add the article to a category where editors and image contributors can easily find them. -->>sparkit| TALK << 15:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * The main problem with these templates, and some others like Unreferenced, is that they can reasonably be applied to some 90% of Wikipedia articles. What they are useful for is pointing out those articles that at least one editor feels are of greater than average importance of improvement. I see this as a concept somewhat similar to Requested articles. There are millions of topics that Wikipedia does not yet cover, but it is still useful to know which of these topics someone thinks are especially needed. - SimonP 16:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see use to Expansion, and I Reqimage on talk. They haven't been applied to every article yet and are targeted by a community. That said I believe the Expansion template should be reworded or stuck on talk.(as should Reqimage). Falphin 19:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Simon is exactly right -- these templates *can* be applied to a significant portion of our 600,000+ artctles. That makes them effectively useless. →Raul654 20:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to place them on every article I contribute to - they are clearly "of greater than average importance" than most other articles. Sorry, a little sarcastic there, but my point is that it's somewhat of a subjective opinion.  People should use todo more than expansion, and link with relevant WikiProjects where possible.  I understand the point of these templates, but only really see the third one (as a talk page template) as being worthwhile.  But then, place them on TfD and I doubt very much that the majority would choose to delete it.  violet/riga (t) 20:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Open information theory of Wikipedia
Readers deserve to know our the weaknesses present in our articles in the most open and direct way possible; usually at the top of the articles in question. These templates are every bit as relevant to readers as they are to editors.

This is one way that I can see Wikipedia being far superior than any other encyclopedia ever written.


 * Does Encarta tell you that their Jerusalem article was revised and reverted and distilled among many points of view, or do they present just one, and assume you'll trust them because they're the authority figure?


 * Does Encarta allow you to go through the revision history of articles such as Ronald Reagan to look for subtle biases and outright point-of-view imbalances?


 * Does Encarta tell you that they might not have enough references to be giving a truly "authoritative" presentation on Antiretroviral drugs? (Picked at random from my watchlist... we actually could use a few more cited references ourselves.)


 * Would Encarta acknowledge if they don't have a good photograph of Basil Rathbone?

Wikipedia will always be far superior if we always acknowledge our weaknesses in the most open way possible, not just because it inspires more contributions, but because it is a more intellectually honest way of presenting information. While others hide behind the voice of authority, we openly ask for help where we need it.

What templates we require, and when to post them to articles are simply case-by-case discussions that need to be held. We're perfectly capable of that without wasting time on a vote, which is by nature contrary to basic Wikipedia principles. I'd rather we be bold and ignore the rules and instead of building a rule book to building an encyclopedia, build the encyclopedia. <FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>focused 17:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have some sympathy with this ("display all information") view.
 * However it does not explain why templates are allowed on an article page, but prose about article problems is confined to the talk page. This is inconsistent and wrong. Either all information goes on the article page, or none of it does. Templates do not have a special privilege because they have got a coloured box around them. Pcb21| Pete 11:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Templates are cues, signposts, and notices. On the road, we don't post the whole text of the law regarding temporal and positional traffic priority at a four-way intersection, we post a "Stop" sign.  We don't post a scientific essay about the reduction of the coefficient of friction in the presence of moisture; we post a "Slippery When Wet" sign.  This is why many templates belong on article pages, and discussions about them go on the talk pages.  This is also why we argue so much about the appearance of templates; they need to be informative, yet succinct.  <FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>focused 11:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If I see a stop sign, I know what to do. If I see "this article is POV" sign, I don't know what to do (fix). If a template is merely a signpost to the talk page, I don't see why we need so many dozens of them. Better to have a single . Pcb21| Pete 14:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not all signs are instructional: some are instructional, such as "Stop", "Yield" and "Merge"; some are warning signs, such as "Danger: High Voltage"; and some are informational, such as "Exit 3: Nash Road 3 Miles". The same applies here.  There isn't always something to "fix" in a Wikipedia article.  For example, I expect that the FairTax article, being about a political issue, will never lose the  tag.  This is normal, and to be expected in some articles. <FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>focused 15:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is really true though then the principle behind NPOV has failed. Jimbo has always said the idea is to find some wording such that all opinion-holders can accept the wording whilst disagreeing with each other. Using ugly templates to paper over the cracks between disagreeing editors is offering no service to the reader. Pcb21| Pete 15:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Papering over the cracks" is what editorial boards of other encyclopedias do when they decide what content to include. True NPOV is sometimes just accepting and acknowledging that there are different opposing, irreconcilable points of view.  (How would you reconcile the political history of Jerusalem, for example?  What about the criticism of Wal-Mart?)  There are many articles where there simply isn't one right view.  And supporters won't always agree with detractors' wording of their views, and vice-versa.
 * In these cases, articles with POV or POV-section tags are more realistic views of the issue, and therefore more encyclopedic than a similar articles found elsewhere without a POV tag. And in Wikipedia, if you see a long-standing POV tag missing, it's likely that one side has gotten frustrated, bored, or lost interest and given up.  Last remaining POV by attrition is no way to write an encyclopedia.  Rather than allow subtle bias to creep in, or POV by attrition to take over, POV tags enhance the value of the article by making clear the content dispute.  <FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>focused 16:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand your point of view but ultimately have to reject your principle that their are unreconcillable articles. If we accept this principle for the obviously difficult cases like the Palestinian question, I can almost guarantee that it will spread until every vaguely controversial article gets it.


 * This is drifting away from the question of tags a little bit though. Maybe the two points of view - mine that creation and product should be separate and others' that they should mix are irreconciable ;) Pcb21| Pete 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, FairTax has indeed been de-POV'd. -- Beland 00:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of the current votes
This is a breakdown of the current votes (early tally followed by current standings):
 * Expansion 3-7-0 &mdash; 18-17-0
 * Reqimage 3-5-0 &mdash; 23-6-0
 * COTW 2-6-0 &mdash; 21-10-1
 * featured 1-8-0 &mdash; 18-15-0
 * Limitedgeographicscope 0-7-1 &mdash; 10-15-2
 * CSBArticles 2-6 &mdash; 17-7-0
 * POV check 2-7-0 &mdash; 12-19-0
 * Listdev 0-7-0 &mdash; 3-20-0
 * DrugsNotice 1-4-1 &mdash; 24-3-2
 * Album 3-3-0 &mdash; 23-2-0

Or, put another way:
 * Talk page: Reqimage COTW CSBArticles DrugsNotice Album
 * Article: Limitedgeographicscope POV check Listdev
 * Too close to call: Expansion featured

violet/riga (t) 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think 15 in favor and 18 opposed is (in any way) consensus to change the featured template, whose use has been universally uncontroversial (and whose inclusion in those poll was, IMO, suspect to being with) →Raul654 22:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well the poll started because one user had decided that they were going to enforce their opinion of where these templates should go, on articles en masse. The poll was an attempt to demonstrate that there was no consensus for such behaviour, which these results show. Consequently it was the ones that clearly have no consensus that were most important to put into the poll.     08:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's why I placed it in the "too close to call" section. I agree that, in its current form, the template should not appear on the article, but having just a featured star appear next to the title might be acceptable, hence the new WP:TS discussions.  violet/riga (t) 10:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It is my view that we have no business using a vote to force an opinion to become standard where there is no real consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy; consensus is not a result of voting.  I don't see any reason why these cannot be decided on a case by case basis in the articles themselves.  Some users are trying too hard to standardize rather than applying principles of "Be Bold" and "Ignore the rules", the first two items on Wikipedia's Simplified ruleset.  <FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>focused 12:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style is a standard, and without that we'd be in a pretty dire state. I agree that voting is sometimes a bad way of working out a policy, but it can also show if there is a consensus.  Some of the results are 20 to 2 in favour of one location and obviously shows the weight of opinion, others are much closer and show that a compromise must be reached along with further discussion.  This is a straw poll which, in my opinion, is best served as influencing and directing some aspects of WP:TS.  violet/riga (t) 12:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As a straw poll, I don't object to this vote, but it isn't presented as such on the project page. I don't see a problem being addressed, (unless not complying with some editors' opinions about where templates go is a problem) but I do see instruction creep on the rise.  <FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>focused 12:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This poll shouldn't be given too much weight, at least because it doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines/policy for polls. Maurreen 12:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Design and layout issues
Many comments and issues have been raised for specific design and layout changes. Some of the templates were designed to be placed on the article page, and have links to the talk page for the article. If these templates are to be placed on the talk page, the wording and link should be removed. These only lead the user to beleive that there is a seperate discussion, when they are already on the discussion page. Also, reqimage was re-designed specifically for placement on the article. I suggest we go back to a slightly modified version of the coffee rolled version, if this is going to be placed on talk pages. Here is a rough version of what I propose we use: this version, rather than the current layout. This would also include adding a long requested parameter for "type of image". Comments and suggestions are appreciated. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 00:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The current version of reqimage is a monstrous piece of ugliness that should not be used on either an article's main page or its talk page. Either replacing it with your new version or rolling back to ALoan's version of 8 June 2005 is greatly preferable. Looking at the "What links here" show that the template is almost always put on the Talk page, so a coffee roll-version is appropriate, and any uses of the template on an article's main page should be moved to the talk page.


 * As for the extra parameter: I think a much better way to go is to have a policy that whenever any Dispute or Cleanup templates are added to a page that the person adding the template should also be required to add the todo template to the Talk page explaining why the dispute or cleanup template was added and what steps should be done before the template is removed (and if that is not done, it is grounds for the possible removal of the dispute or cleanup template). Blank <font color= 	#F88017>Verse <font color=#2554C7> <font color=#F660AB>∅  02:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Monstrous .. Well, don't be shy :). Actually as for "What links here", is very inaccurate, on 13JULY, I posted a question about the end of the poll, becasue Michael Snow took it upon himself in the middle of the discussion/vote to remove all instances of the template from the article pages; see one instance here, where he removed the template, without even placing it on the talk page.  Before this, only one or two of the templates were on talk pages.  As I was the original proposer and creator of the monstrosity, as you put it, I watched the template, and I make frequent visits to Category:Wikipedia requested images, to ensure everything was "functioning" properly. Also many of the pages that had the template were on my watchlist for other reasons, so I watched them all be removed, however, I was in bed most of the time due to my accident, so could not respond appropriately to this.  I am very opposed to the blatant removal of the templates, before the end of the "discussion", by ANY single user.  There was a purpose for the discussion, and it not only discussed moving the templates, but their possible redesign.


 * The todo placement is a good idea. I am not sure about policy, some newer users won't really know all policies concerning such things, and we shouldn't be so restrictive, if a user wants to place a request.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  02:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * For any template that goes on the Talk page, I'd redesign the template so that it automatically added the todo template, and would also reword the template a bit to make it clear that adding the reasons for the template was expected (if not required). (Which is just one more argument for why most of the templates should go on the Talk pages instead of an article's main page). Blank <font color= 	#F88017>Verse <font color=#2554C7> <font color=#F660AB>∅  03:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, to add it to the existing templates. As long as there are clear instructions on the discussion pages, as I'm sure there are or will be, I think that would help a great deal, especially for new users.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  04:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It would also might help with some of the more veteran Wikipedia editors who sometimes wield the dispute and cleanup tags like weapons as they make their WP:POINTs in various disputes (or so says my inner cynic). Blank <font color= 	#F88017>Verse <font color=#2554C7> <font color=#F660AB>∅  06:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Archived discussion from Village pump
(Moved here as I felt it best place to archive, move it on if not. --Hiding talk 20:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

Meta-templates again
Several times in recent months, we've been through the issue of where to put templates related to internal Wikipedia projects (COTW, WikiProjects, etc.), as opposed to templates that give information to the reader (e.g., about disputed content). Most recently, we had a discussion at Template locations, and it was generally agreed that most meta-templates belong on talk pages. However, my effort to standardize the treatment of these templates is being resisted by Fenice, a user who seems particularly attached to getting these templates directly on the articles. More input would be welcome, currently at Wikipedia talk:This week's improvement drive. --Michael Snow 20:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that Michael's statement is a blatant lie: we have not been through these issue a few months ago. As his statement clearly states, this is obviously a personal attack on my person to chase me away from Wikipedia, and not about any policy issue. I strongly recommend others not to interfere with Michaels attempts at editwarring with me.--Fenice 20:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I find your comment a lot more attacking and offensive than his. And you don't want us to interfere in the edit war? I'm very confused. --Golbez 20:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no edit war, even though Fenice has started reverting my attempt to standardize the COTW templates on the talk pages. The only thing I reverted was his attempt to prematurely archive the discussion on the improvement drive talk page. --Michael Snow 21:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was generally agreed that most meta-templates belong on talk pages is a fair summary of the discussion and vote at Template locations. Specifically, for Expansion the vote favored talk pages by 28 to 20, plus 2 "It depends", not exactly an overwhelming consensus. For featured the vote was 23 to 20 for talk pages. For Limitedgeographicscope the vote was 18 to 13 for putting it on the article page directly. For POV check the vote was 24 to 17 for putting it on the article page directly. For Listdev it was 21 to 5 for putting it on the article page directly. thus I don't theing the overall consensus is nearly as clear as the above comment implies. I would avoid attacks like "blatant lie" however, for most of the templates more people favored talk pages than did article pages, but not a clear consensus in several cases, IMO. DES (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify what I meant by my summary of the discussion, then. I wasn't claiming that all meta-templates are affected, and I realize that for some of those you mention the sentiment is not as strong. But I'm not currently arguing that we should force any of those onto talk pages, so that's not what this disagreement is about. The sentiment was quite strong, and I think this position is justified, with respect to templates that advertise the efforts of some project (COTW, WikiProjects, or the Article improvement drive at issue here), and convey no information related to the topic of the article. --Michael Snow 21:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There I would agree, there was a pretty strong consensus that the project-specific templates discussed should only be used on the talk page. There was a majority, but not nearly as strong a consensus, that this should aplly to all project temnplates -- some, including I, said that this should be considered case by case asn that smaller and less obtrusive project templates might go on article pages in some hypothetical cases. DES (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the word "meta-template" referred to a template incorporated within another (q.v. WP:AUM). Anyway. I think that since this is a very simple issue of preference of the location, a simple majority would suffice to dictate where the template goes. I would urge interested parties to take established majorities from WP:TL, make the obvious inference from there (e.g. if cleanup goes some place, then so does cleanup-importance etc), and standardize. Edit warring is bad, and if you were in the minority you just have to accept that.
 * It would be easiest if all article-page templates had a different color from talk-page templates. For the latter, I believe the Coffee Roll is the accepted standard.
 * If necessary, take the issue to WP:CENT and make a simple guideline, such as "any template that calls for direct editing of the article in question, e.g. NPOV, cleanup, wikify, merge etc, goes on the article page; any template that indicates hierarchy or other metadata, e.g. was-deleted, FAC, part-of-this-wikiproject, goes on the talk page." Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Good article template now appearing on main article pagespace
Formerly, the "GA" template appeared in the talk page, so GA's non-policy status and GA's lax criteria were not a big problem. now a new template "goodarticle" has been created in addition to the "GA" talk page one, and is being forced onto the article page of all articles with GA status, without any prior discussion or consensus. i'm not sure the functioning of this page, if i should add it here or not, in the meantime there is a template for deletion vote where it is being discussed here: Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25. your comments/votes are appreciated. thx. Zzzzz 14:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The template places a small Good Article symbol ([[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|14px|Plus icon]]) in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. The icon is very unintrusive, just like the featured article icon. &mdash;RJN 14:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But that's precisely the problem: GA is not 'just like' FA. FA's are exceptional and it might just be a good thing to identify them as such to the reader. 'Good articles' however simply are up to our own standards (WP:MOS, WP:V, WP:CITE). It is rather strange to tell the reader that he is reading an article that's up to our own minimal standards. Besides, as their number increases, the number of self-references increases and that's bad style for an encyclopedia. &mdash; mark ✎ 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Images needed template in article space
Please comment on a new article space template at TfD Images needed. GregManninLB (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)