Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 13

< October 12	October 14 >

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 debate was Replace and delete Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abortion by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The only article which employs this template is the Abortion in the Netherlands article. All other "Abortion by country" articles employ continent-specific templates, such as Template:Abortion in Europe. The continent-specific templates are much more appropriate, as this template will be quite unwieldy when all countries of the world have "Abortion by country" articles. Neelix (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This template should be on all abortion by country pages, as it is allows for easy navigation between countries. CTJF83Talk 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete. This template will, when finished, contain a link for every member state of the UN, all two hundred of them. That's not easy navigation at all. It would help if the continent-specific templates linked to each other, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not proposing adding every country to the template, only ones with pages. CTJF83Talk 19:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And by WP:DEADLINE, every country with an abortion law, past, present, or proposed, should have an article. Which countries don't satisfy that condition? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't really have to rearrange things right now to accommodate hypothetical future events. If the list gets to be too long to be handy in the future, then it can be rearranged in the future. Also, it's not necessary to use separate templates; the countries could trivially be organized into separate rows by continent (see {{Abortion law}} for an example of a navigational template that is organized into rows). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete per PMAnderson. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with continent specific templates, just as long as the articles are still in Category:Abortion by country. Maybe the continent specific templates should have a link to this category as well, say under "Abortion on other continents" or "Abortion in other regions"? — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 14:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was keep for {{underconstruction}} and {{inuse}}. As for the other templates mentioned, no consensus. Guidelines over the use of the templates should be made in the template's documentation or on a general guideline page; for, TFD is not for determining policies/guidelines regarding the use of an individual template and makes it difficult to determine consensus during a deletion discussion. If you feel that the other templates need discussion, please consider re-listing individually instead of grouping. --slakr^\ talk / 23:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Underconstruction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:PageRefurb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Revisions sandboxed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Inuse-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Inuse/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

When I first saw 'under construction' templates, I thought that I was not supposed to edit the page and it seems that discouraging editing is exactly the purpose. I think I may even have been told by another editor that I needed to wait until he/she had removed the template. However, people are abusing what should be a rare privilige. If the argument is that active editing is in process then they must be tapping away at their keyboards and that seems to be an argument for perhaps 15 minutes to an hour grace.

I have the following suggestions:

1. Ban 'under construction' templates. Wikipedia is always work in progress. I don't believe that the number of templates on articles matches a real requirement. However, I don't think many people will support this option.
2. Rationalise the many similar templates into one template.
3. Each 'under construction' template shall have a visible expiry time. This will make it much easier to see that the template is due for removal. Currently, you have to be determined to work out how long it has been there, who added it, and whether they are showing signs of activity.
4. The expiry time for 'under construction' templates shall not exceed one hour. The time of one hour is arbitarily chosen but is consistent with active editing of text by the editor that wants to use the template to discourage contributions by other editors. Nominated by Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

• Keep {{Underconstruction}}, no opinion as to the rest. We've been through this and this twice before as far as the {{Underconstruction}} template is concerned. It is necessary to avoid having articles speedy deleted for having lack of content or lack of assertion of notability. I do think that with the {{Underconstruction}} template the other templates are redundant, but I think at least one template is necessary. As currently worded, the {{Underconstruction}} template does not discourage other people from editing, and in fact encourages it. --Nlu (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support points 2, 3, and 4? Your second to last sentence appears to support point 2 at least. Lightmouse (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect all to {{Underconstruction}}, per Lightmouse's point #2. I don't think it's necessary to delete them all (suggestion #1), but I do think more than one template for the same purpose ("go away while I WP:OWN this page") is a little overkill. I personally don't hold with Nlu's arguments regarding speedy deletion: it is quite simple to construct the article in userspace and then move it into mainspace when it's ready for inclusion. However, I have no objection to the underconstruction template being used when pages are being revamped (I've used it myself for this purpose). I also have no objection to Lightmouse's suggestions #3 and #4, although they seem a little WP:CREEPy to me. I agree with them, I just think they are quite unlikely to be followed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by 'unlikely to be followed'. There are already voluntary time options in the templates but they are not used. So I agree with you that a voluntary time option would not work. My suggestion was for the template to have a fixed time period that the user cannot change i.e.

• This page is undergoing active editing blah blah blah. This notice is valid until <timestamp>.

The editor could refresh it as many times as they like. I would not want to stop active editors seeking another period if they really are pounding the keyboard trying to get that updated text out. A visible-to-all fixed expiry time would end the problems caused by current fire-and-forget option. I am open to debate but I'm just trying to clarify things. Lightmouse (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't quite internalized that the timestamp would be mandatory (although it's going to be confusing for people who still aren't used to thinking in UTC). In that case I would support the time limits. However, I'd say you'd need to hardcode the time limit, something like {{prod}} does when subst:ed, or else it won't work. People will be putting in 6-month time limits or something like that. I agree with you that this shouldn't be used for more than an hour or so.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Your signature says '18:58, 13 October 2008'. If the expiry period is 1 hour, it would say something like 'this tag can be removed after 19:58, 13 October 2008'. As User:Greg implied, it is like a use-by date on food. The target for the design of the use-by timestamp is other people reading the page rather than the person that applied the tag. Page readers simply need to see when the tag is past its use-by date. Lightmouse (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes to hard-coding. No user configuration of the time. Lightmouse (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect all to {{Underconstruction}} with an expiry of 1 hour (users permitted to refresh an unlimited number of times but always in blocks of 1 hour, no more), per point #2, #3, and #4. Voting for what I consider to be realistic options. Proposer. Lightmouse (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, this is the nominator. Woody (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Same same. I think the closing admin'll be smart enough to figure it out. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These templates are not intended to discourage editors. Rather, they are a notice to readers: the article is in a mess, more than usually :)) don't count on it.. yet. keep at least {{underconstruction}} and {{inuse-section}}. NVO (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all but {{Revisions sandboxed}} and {{PageRefurb}} as they are superfluous. I thought this would happen when I mentioned these templates in the placeholder discussion. I have had occasion to use these templates numerous times. They are useful when overhauling an article for tedious issues like dates or reference formatting: things that cannot be easily resolved after edit conflicts. Some of these take longer than an hour, much longer, some larger text overhauls take days which necessitates the use of the Under construction template. Woody (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that sounds to me like a vote for merge down from the current five. It also sounds like a recommendation to be able to mark either a 'whole article' or a 'section'. That sounds reasonable to me. What do you think of point #3 and point #4? Lightmouse (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would make it have a mandatory: "put on" date, so it is obvious when the template was put on the page. I think "In use" should have a time limit of three hours, which is usually when you lose the session data anyway. "Under construction" should have a time limit of two or three days; it is meant to be for longer periods, showing that an article is having a major overhaul. Woody (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly oppose point #4. I would not use {{underconstruction}} (as opposed to {{inuse}}, which is "please don't edit-conflict with the current rush of edits") unless the page required real research; real research is unlikely to take less than a hour. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long do you think is reasonable for each tag that you want to retain? Lightmouse (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect all to {{Underconstruction}}. Instructions should state that every effort should be made to remove the template as soon as possible, even if some additional updates are required. It should be available for sections or articles. The time frame should be input by the person placing the template since he/she knows the scope of effort required. It's an essential template especially for new articles. It lets everyone know that someone is in the process of doing major work on the article. All other very similar templates should be merged. — Wjwalrus (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already allow users to enter a maximum time period. The problem is when they don't (look and see if you can spot *any* tag with a time period). What do we do then, leave it on the article for the life of Wikipedia? Lightmouse (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So make the time limit the default, instead of no time limit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge only {{PageRefurb}}; Keep the others. The distinction of {{Revisions sandboxed}}, which adds bells and whistles for those who want them, is probably worth the minor distinction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasonable course is not to remove these with a bot at all. The proper course is to ask the constructor what his plan is, and whether he is continuing with it, on his talk page. I would not remove the tag without consultation unless this note is not replied to, or the page has been static for an extremely long time (say six months). Don't worry, we'll still root them out before publication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the point is that the merged tag would have all the bells and whistles as options. If the {{Revisions sandboxed}} optional params were included in the final merger, would you be ok with the a merger down to one?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. {{in use}} and {{underconstruction}} are radically different things; the former is "don't touch" for a short time, the latter invites collaboration and is long-term. There is also a place for simple templates without bells and whistles; ((tl|underconstruction}} and {{Revisions sandboxed}} should both exist, although the more complex one could use a more transparent name: {{Uc-options}}? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge. on particularly active pages, it is useful to let people know that there is a large-scale revision occurring, otherwise there's a lot of cross-editing that can significantly confuse the process. the visible expiry time is a good idea (though may be fruitless in the case of very large reconstructions). --Ludwigs2 05:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{Revisions sandboxed}}, I like it. I felt pressured to do something about Bethmann bank by an editor who "remove[d] hatnote redlink [from Bethmann family] to Bethmann bank per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Non-existent articles)", so I rushed Bethmann bank into service before it was ready. {{Revisions sandboxed}} came in very handy for telling people not to jump on it just yet, and I like its flashy, noisy appearance. I cannot comment on the other templates. If you guys can agree on some kind of merger that preserves the purpose and effect of {{Revisions sandboxed}}, I would not oppose.--Goodmorningworld (talk)

• Keep and bot-expire faster. I agree with the nominator’s premiss that all of Wikipedia is under construction. I’ve never liked these “under construction” templates because they tend to be like that old 1987 calendar in your grandfather’s barn: why doesn’t someone just take it down? These templates serve a valuable purpose but they simply aren’t being pulled down soon enough. By exploiting bots, we can have a win-win here where these templates effectively have a “sell-by” expiration date.

  If I’m creating an article, I do it on my own user page or sub-page and post it only after it’s halfway presentable. Perhaps not all editors do that; not all editors are registered so they can’t avail themselves of such resources. I would propose that the template be kept and that a bot remove all these templates after 24 hours. If the user still feels the page needs a disclaimer that says, in effect, “this page isn’t ready for prime time”, they can put the {under construction} back in (for another 24 hours).

  I would further propose that a bot also troll for {dubious} tags and similar tags. They should be removed if the issue hasn’t been actively worked after a reasonable period of time. I’ve seen stale, old {dubious} tags on articles and when I looked at the talk page, the issue had been discussed for a few days six months prior and hadn’t been worked since. Whoever placed the tag in the first place would have to be active enough on the debate to notice that a bot removed it and could then put the {dubious} tag back in. Having a bot doing this would obviously get rid of tags on long-abandoned issues. And it has another virtue: in most cases there are vitriolic disputes that results in an editor placing the {disputed} tag. In many of those cases, editors who have slapped the {disputed} tag have embroiled themselves in an RfC as a result of their conduct. Such a bot can help these disputes to die a natural death while giving parties a way to save face. Greg L (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I very strongly oppose this suggestion. Quite often, one knows enough to find a statement implausible without necessarily being able to replace it; this would shift the burden from the editor who wishes to include a statement in Wikipedia onto the skeptic; that's contrary to WP:V. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe, you are referring to my last point above (easy-out for editors who placed a {disputed} tag). The idea isn’t to stack the deck against the vociferous protester (although that seems appealing to my inner child). If the {disputed} tag is removed by a bot after a week and the debate is still ongoing, it’s trivial enough for the editor to put it back. But this bot action would give such an editor a way of saving face if they’ve bitten off more than they can chew and are looking for a way out. I’ve seen this sort of thing before: {dispute} tag → bickering on talk page → RfC → ANI → administrator rolling their eyes over childish behavior on both sides → mediation requests → (rinse & repeat). Having a bot automatically delete the {disputed} tag just gives everyone a chance to step away from the scrap because the first-round bell rang. I’m sure there are plenty of instances where the complaining editor will slap the {disputed} tag right back in and go for round #2… for another week. There is no problem.

  And if you’re talking about {dubious} tags, why leave such a tag in place if everyone had a three-day debate and walked away and the tag is still there a half-year later? I’ve removed several of these because the issues had been abandoned. No one ever put them back in. A bot can do this better than I can. Greg L (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because quite often there is no debate, just a tag and a question on talk, which is never replied to. It is that point at which the burden of proof is shifted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not something a bot should be doing; it rquires reading the discussion and seeing if it was settled. Start a taskforce; they're likely to be clueless, but a bot is certain to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m just not understanding the logic of your point. I would have thought that if a bot fells a “dubious-tag tree” in a forest and there is no one around to hear it fall (no human who gives a holy dump about the deletion who could restore it for another week), then by definition, it makes no noise; the issue had been abandoned. Let me ask you this: If a bot deletes a tag and no one even notices that it was deleted, then how would having left that rusty ol’ tag in the article have been a good thing? Greg L (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You assume that everyone who ever wrote an article, everyone who ever posted a "this seems dubious" note, is still actively watching the page. That is plainly not the case.
  • We could, under such circumstances, routinely remove the challenged text; we could also, as you suggest, routinely remove the tag. Both would be wrong, because such matters should not be decided as bureaucratic routine; routinely removing the tag is the worse of the two. Leave the claim; leave the tag; and eventually someone will come along who has a source, and will decide the matter intelligently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge: The one main reason this template is because it says so on the very first line: This page is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. On active and constructive pages, it should be useful for users to be aware abotu how there are large-scale edits occuring. Ay ^{(Reply!,Contribs!)} 22:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep {{inuse}} (even though it's not explicitly nominated here), it is very useful to some to have a template saying "I am actively editing this article, please don't edit conflict me". See for example the discussion here. I have no opinion on the rest, except to note that merging {{underconstruction}} with {{inuse}} would effectively destroy the utility of {{inuse}}. Anomie⚔ 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:JL-Bot is currently approved to remove stale under-construction templates, and appears to be currently running. Anomie⚔ 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge Hopefully someone could develop a single template that would do all of the current functionality. The {{inuse}} and {{inuse-section}} templates are critical for reducing conflicts and they need to be kept if merging is not possible. I think I'm the king of getting edit conflicts. I would support an expiry time on these templates. I'm not sure it should be only an hour, but contributors are given too much leeway with no limit. Royalbroil 02:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all except {{PageRefurb}} and {{Revisions sandboxed}}. The system is fine as it is, other than that. I therefore also oppose all of Lightmouse's additional suggestions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Parserfunctions maybe able to help out with stale templates. Using the {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} we can tell when the page was last edited magic word. For example this page was last edited 1128542 minutes ago, although this is a buggy being off by whatever the timezone is set to. — Dispenser 03:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep one meaning under construction and one meaning in use. I see these as two different things. I never understand "under construction" to mean "don't touch". To me it serves two purposes: (1) "I *know* this doesn't look like a great article yet, please excuse the appearance, I'm working on it in place (though it seems to me that in that case the person could have built it in a sandbox first) and (2) please don't delete it yet, I know what the deficiencies are but they're fixable and I'm working on them." "In use", on the other hand, should be used for a very short period of time to mean, "I'm making a series of short edits and instead of subjecting me to dozens of 'Edit Conflict' messages it would be nice if I could just get through this." I didn't know about the sandbox revisions one, and I don't think it's fair to other users. I think the policy says, and rightly so, that it's the sandboxing person who's then responsible for merging his work with changes that were made subsequent to his original copy.—Largo Plazo (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep {{Underconstruction}} and {{Inuse}} and merge the rest. --Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This sprawling discussion makes clear one thing: these templates should have been nominated and discussed individually. I've used {{Underconstruction}} (so keep) in an article that has no lead section because I write the introduction last when I'm writing about a topic I've not surveyed sufficiently. The {{inuse}} would have been helpful in avoiding some edit conflicts, but I prefer avoiding the "big lock" approach (so weak keep). VG ☎ 07:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep {{underconstruction}} and {{inuse}}, then redirect the rest to one or the other. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And expire them after an hour too. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep {{underconstruction}} and {{inuse}} with 1 hour expiry time, either via bot, or a system similar to {{prod}} (or both), and redirect rest to the two. If the removal would be done by a bot, perhaps the time lapse should start from the beginning if the page is edited within the hour? In case of pages created by newbies facing deletion because the tag expired and the article is still not in an acceptable state, maybe a reminder that they can/should create articles in a sandbox would be in place. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 13:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep {{underconstruction}} and {{inuse}}. Until such time as all new accounts automatically come with their own sandbox both these templates are useful when an article has been uploaded in an incomplete form and the editor intends to work on it. It saves the editor having loads of improve templates slapped on an article within 3 mins of creating it as other editors can see that work will be forthcoming to improve it. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there is Special:MyPage/Sandbox etc. Perhaps new users should be made more aware that they can create user subpages to prepare articles in (even though they can't move them themselves until they are autoconfirmed), as I remember not having a clue about that when I was a newbie. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep at least {{underconstruction}} and {{inuse}}. When inuse is used properly this prevents edit conflicts - especially on high-trafficked articles. Underconstruction is especially important because (as in its current use at Iowa House of Representatives elections, 2008) it can signal that the article is under construction and some information may not be relaible - in this case, I'm integrating a new set of templates into the article but because it takes significant time, about half of the tables are Iowa data and the other half are Pennsylvania data (where I got the templates from). Without the underconstruction template's notice that the article is "not yet ready for use" people may be confused and wrongly rely on the Pennsylvania data. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - They do a good job and are often very useful. As per the above, at least keep "underconstruction" and "inuse". Utan Vax (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep {{underconstruction}}, no opinion on remainder. I use this a lot when translating long articles from German Wikipedia. If I don't use this tag when I take a break until e.g. the next evening I find that other well-meaning Wikipedians start tagging the half-translated articles for deletion etc. Not helpful! A 1 hour expiry is no good for this purpose - keep it at 7 days please. But if a simple {under translation} tag existed (does it?) I would use that instead. Bermicourt (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep {{underconstruction}}, albeit cautiously. It is useful for new articles that are being worked on but have not yet had references applied. This is a particular irritance of mine and it only encourages the repetitive previewing of articles which has in the past led to me losing the content I've being working on due to systems failure or extreme weather. I do agree with the comment above about the "under translation" tag as it seems similar to what I have just described, i.e. potential loss of information through systems failure or speedy deletion. --Candlewicke  ^{:) Sign/Talk} 21:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep {{underconstruction}}, I don't really use the rest. I find it relatively helpful in creating new articles, although I agree the length of time before it is automatically removed should be shortened to anywhere from hours to a few days.   jj137 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is a valid template, an article or section may look odd if someone dosen't know what's going on. However, it should be made explicitly clear that this is not ment to say someone can't edit a page and should only be used for large, semi-complete edits. --Ipatrol (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion purely on underconstruction and inuse (I haven't looked into the others). Keep both separate but allow auto removal. These two templates have different meanings and should not be merged. To my mind, underconstruction is more a warning against instability and to avoid speedy prods, and as such could have an default expiry time of 7 days (which could be changed by the editor who places it). It also invites others to pitch in and edit. Inuse is there to stop edit conflicts and is a template mainly for notification that an editor is doing some major work. As such, a default expiry time would be better at say 3 hours. It can be changed initially, or renewed by the editor. It could perhaps have a maximum setting of 24 hours (renewable of course).–MDCollins (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for "underconstruction" and "inuse", both very valuable for the project & their employment here ought to be encouraged widely. I'd support a more definite time limit stated on the tag, though not one that automatically deactivates the tag. For "underconstruction," I'd suggest 7 days. This will accommodate anyone who works in an irregular pattern. Anything so bad it can't sit here incomplete for 7 days can of course be speedied in spite of the tag. If we're worried about people forgetting to use it, we could set an auto delete or a bot after say 3 weeks or so. For "In use" there similarly might be a stated time limit of perhaps 4 hours, which is enough for the intended purpose. I wouldn't oppose having it automatically vanish after 24 hours, just in case someone forgets. The purposes are different, and need to be kept distinct. I have seen no evidence that these tags are improperly used. If anything, they are much underused, and the overhasty deletion of articles is a matter of serious concern. We have had difficulty in finding better mechanisms for this, but at least we should keep what we do have. Proposals to remove these tags have been made from time to time at various places. such proposals are the exact opposite of the desired direction for encouraging contributors and avoiding BITE. DGG (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as for PageRefurb I think its redundant, and should be redirected to "underconstruction". I do noty quite understand the purpose of "revisions sandboxed", but it seems overcomplicated, and should simply also redirect to "underconstruction". DGG (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Underconstruction; don't care on the rest. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep InUse, Delete Underconstruction, no opinion on the others: The InUse tag is very useful for preventing edit conflicts; however it should be modified to tag the time at which it was added so a user may quickly know whether the usage is current of if the tag was placed and forgotten. Underconstruction just seems to give editors an excuse for dropping half-baked articles into the article space rather than developing them in their own user space first. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Underconstrution and inuse. Both are highly useful, with UC being good to note that an article is undergoing heavy editing (particularly new articles or during a project collaboration). Inuse is extremely useful when a single editor is doing work on an article that is regularly edited to attempt to avoid edit conflicts (nothing quite so aggravating as getting that EC notice after you've been at it for a good 20-30 minutes in a single edit). Merge/redirect PageRefurb and Revisions sandboxed to UC. Merge/redirect Inuse-section to inuse. Keep Inuse/doc, obviously, with inuse. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep {{inuse}}, {{inuse-section}}, {{underconstruction}} and {{inuse/doc}} - this has probably been mentioned before hat these templates are highly useful and with inuse-section you can be more specific as to which area you are expanding and that. A major point i would like to add is that these templates are NOT limited to articles, but are also used on other pages such as templates, portals, projects, categories etc. A reason to keep the inuse-doc is that it is the documentation for inuse, i.e. on how to use this template and features. The difference between underconstruction and inuse is that the former is used for constructing or expanding a page, whereas the latter is for any other major changes such as changing of content, performing merges and deletions, but not limited to this.

As for the remainding templates, merge with {{inuse}}. Simply south (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep {{underconstruction}} - it is useful in telling the researcher to take the page with a grain of salt as it is still under work and more is coming, or crap is going. Lihaas (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Underconstruction[edit]

I am opposed to setting time limits on use of the underconstruction tag. I have been using this template on Orienteering, during an overhaul that has been going on for over a week now. The article is Top importance but B class and several contributors are working to improve it, ideally to FA class. The article is unstable, in a good way, but that instability does mean sections may be way out of synch. Tagging the article underconstruction is very helpful. --Una Smith (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above for my comments on Underconstruction/InUse (I support bot-removal after certain time limits and would keep both). The only problem I can foresee is would anons use 'Underconstruction' excessively to in effect block new articles from the New Page Patrol deleters - in effect keeping it out of harms way until after 7 days, by which time it will have passed under the radar. Obviously if it is patent nonsense or fails notability etc. I guess they could use the template now, but with bot-removal, crap might get missed.–MDCollins (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that Underconstruction should have a timelimit of 1 or 2 days, some people have lives. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inuse[edit]

I can see the point to setting a time limit of only hours for the inuse tag. However, I have used the tag when doing (or trying to do) complicated revisions to the structure of an article. The only alternative to "locking" the article with an inuse tag is to rewrite in a subpage and hope no one makes radical changes to the article in the meantime. --Una Smith (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Inuse should be limited to the hour-limit proposed. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

This isn't the forum to set time limits on the templates - if you wish to do so, discuss it on the talk page of the template itself. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was No consensus to delete, default to keep.Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FGwiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As stated at WP:EL, external links shouldn't be made to open wikis. While WP:EL isn't policy, I believe that http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/FGwiki is a poor wiki in my opinion. I never understood why you would want to link to another wiki. It is kind of like Wal Mart advertising for Target CTJF83Talk 15:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Because they have detail we don't think notable; how many deletion discussions end by saying that the article belongs on the fannish wiki? This doesn't mean we shouldn't link to them. This boldly idenrifies the link as not to us, and not bound by our standards; that should be enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• We are not Walmart or Target--we are not in competition with anyone. Different information sources have their place, and we want to encourage useful moves and relocations. DGG (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The cited part of WP:EL is "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." With that being said, I believe FG Wiki does pass WP:EL. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Number 1 "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." That site has basically the same stuff we have, but more crap. CTJF83Talk 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not crap at all, not for people who are looking for in-depth information about Family Guy. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because I hate Family Guy I see no point in linking to a fan wiki, and I don't see how the FG wiki has "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Ned Scott. I'm not a big fan of the current incarnation of EL anyway, but I agree with the sentiment that it meets the criteria laid out therein; FGwiki is an active project with plenty of active users. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm...It has less than 500 users, I hardly find that a "substantial number of editors" I also still don't have any answer to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." It clearly doesn't meet that requirement, in fact it has more "crap" then the Wiki pages. CTJF83Talk 03:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 500 users is huge for an independent wiki. There are wikis out there that would be linked without a doubt that have far less active editors. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it fails EL and should not be encouraged. EL requires an open wiki to have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I see no sign that is has the substantial history of stability and list of users does not equal substantial editors. How many actually edit? Looking at the recent changes, it seems only a handful of registered users actually do most of the editing, with the rest being drive by IPs. That does not meet EL IMHO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive by IP editors make the majority of Wikipedia's content as well. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created this template (as I recall) because I felt it would be helpful to move much of the unencyclopedic information that floods Family Guy articles to another wiki; I don't think this has happened much, and attempts to transwiki FG information being deleted from Wikipedia have been met with considerable resistance from certain Wikipedia editors.
  I should also point out that a previous deletion of this template was overturned in Deletion review on the following grounds

  No consensus to delete, nor does the template violate WP:EL.

  Obviously this need not be the last word, but a deletion here is likely to be appealed. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the last one was appealed, was because the admin made his own decision to delete it, after the consensus was to keep it, poor admin decision. If a consensus says to delete it, how would they have a leg to stand on, in an appeal? I stand by citing EL that it "...does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." CTJF83Talk 19:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point still stands, we've already addressed these concerns in both the last TfD and the DRV. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete imo, not a useful template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingrin87 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source - the number of editors with accounts making edits to the FG wiki is substantially smaller and with the allowance of anonymous editing at FG wiki, I do not see how it can be considered to have any type of basis for accuracy or fact checking. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allowing IPs to edit should not be seen in a negative light. It's troubling to hear such talk from a Wikipedian. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see nothing troubling about questioning whether a place that allows anyone to edit content should be considered a reliable and accurate source. I am holding nothing against IP editing other than allowing such actions prevents consideration of the source meeting our requirements for external links.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Schools use this same argument to block our entire website. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not sure how the inclusion of more links to sites of quesionable reliability would in any way make schools more likely to allow access to Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• To delete the n subst.--Freewayguy 00:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is nothing in Family Guy Wiki episode pages that isn't already in the Wikipedia article; it's only stated in a different way. (See WP:ELNO, point 1.) ... discospinster _talk 02:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot more detail in the Family Guy Wiki. If this is the case for a specific article on Wikipedia then we can remove that instance of the template, but for the majority of them this is simply not true. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This matter goes further than just Family Guy Wiki, and I think it would be fair to consider the fate of this template based on this discussion alone. The same debate (although being aimed at wikis in general, rather than specific ones) has been discussed time and time again. This includes things such as what we consider a substantial number of editors, and what the meaning behind the open wiki part of WP:EL means. Going through the talk page archives I've dug up these links so far (I will keep updating as I find them).

• Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 21#Wikias
• Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 20#Definition
• Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 19#"12 Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."
• Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 19#Wiki wording suggestion
• Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 19#Meta:Interwiki map
• Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 17#Discourse DB and database-style wikis
• Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 17#Wikifur
• Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 17#EL pimping of free content sites

• -- Ned Scott 02:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep contains extra information that readers would want to look at, but Wikipedia would call it fancruft. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was Delete. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman myth (major) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Poor copy version of this template: Template:Roman religion. 91.77.93.127 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Template:Roman religion has the same, and more info. CTJF83Talk 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly delete, but maybe even speedy delete, as this appears to be a {{db-t3}} candidate to me. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not T3, this has a different functionality: it's a page footer. Such as it is, that is also the case to Keep; if someone, now or hereafter, wants myth articles done that way, here is the tool. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is these two same navy box?--Freewayguy 00:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was delete. delldot ∇. 05:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Variable Geo character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Pagrashtak 13:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused template CTJF83Talk 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, via nom--Freewayguy 00:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was delete. delldot ∇. 05:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOS character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Pagrashtak 13:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused template CTJF83Talk 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte via nom--Freewayguy 00:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was delete. delldot ∇. 04:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Star Control race (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Pagrashtak 13:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused template CTJF83Talk 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete via nom--Freewayguy 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was Delete and Replace with Category:Former KCR stations --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KCR Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does nothing but add a single category. Not an infobox. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but add the category Category:Former KCR stations to each templated article in the usual fashion (as the category seems fine, although KCR should be expanded). Occuli (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was delete. delldot ∇. 04:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Billboard Hot 100 50th Anniversary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has no navigational value without links. Probably not particularly useful even if it did. Wolfer68 (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no navigational value and Template:Billboard takes care of the charts that have pages. CTJF83Talk 18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was no consensus to delete here. The issue should be brought up at a copyright-related page, and the template can be deleted afterward if it's decided it's not a valid copyright claim. delldot ∇. 06:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-US-flag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All US State, District or Insular area flags are public domain? ^{[citation needed]}

Basically, there is no rationale or citation supporting this claim. ViperSnake151 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 06:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC) -- Seems a little more complex than an unnecessary template or something, so I'm not comfortable deleting without a little more input. delldot ∇. 06:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Eep. It's on 30 or so pages. If it's not a valid claim, of course it should be deleted, but gracefully. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Has this been discussed at WT:Copyrights or a similar forum? They'd probably know better than we would if the template's claim was true or not. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 debate was Delete

Template:Indiana Jones character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Used only by 5 articles. Magioladitis (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I agree, it is redundant. 71.183.225.182 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Candlewicke  ^{:) Sign/Talk} 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (and replace) per nom. Terraxos (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deelte, per nom.--Freewayguy 00:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Template:Infobox character to avoid breaking existing uses. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.