Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 9 August 11 >

August 10


Template:Ecuador airlines destinations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge with {{Airlines of Ecuador}} and then delete. Magioladitis (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador airlines destinations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A more suitable template, {{

WP:NENAN. Jetstreamer Talk 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • It is used on
    LAN Ecuador and TAME. I don't see an overly necessary reason to delete it. Perhaps it could be merged with Airlines of Ecuador. Ryan Vesey 20:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If this is kept rather than merged, it should probably be on both. Ryan Vesey 20:35, 10 August 2012 (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.

Template:Islamophobia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The ongoing discussion at

talk) 17:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

While it is not an argument for keeping it in itself it is necessary that we keep a cool head and not let the Breivik supporters trick us into deleting valid content. // Liftarn (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I don't know how I got here but I'm shocked people are making up their own terms of the word and playing semantics on the etymology. Per Roscelese and JonFlaune it should be kept. Seems ridiculous to delete given the fact that it is a widely accepted term by both academics, dictionaries and anti-discrimination organisations such as the Southern Povery Law Center. Numpty9991 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC) sockpuppet of banned user Dalai Lama Ding Dong[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.

Template:Wikify

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete (Note: I took the WikiProject discussion into consideration as well.) - It seems clear from the discussions that the consensus is that the name and wording of the template can be confusing and/or problematic, which affects clarity in usage; and that there are other templates, presumably more specific, which may be more useful/appropriate to a particular situation. With that in mind, once the transclusions are fixed, Template:Wikify should be kept as a dab page similar to Template:Expand, which should help keep non-transcluded links (links in discussions) intact, and also as a help to point towards those specific templates to be used instead (such as Template:Dead end), per the concerns in the discussions, and indeed, per the examples listed in the nom itself. - jc37 17:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like this template to be deprecated and deleted redirected to {{Dead end}} modified at 15:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC) once the last usage of this template is removed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify has expanded its scope to all of the templates that cover aspects of Wikification. The articles are contained in Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify.

{{Wikify}} is one of the most misunderstood templates on the encyclopedia. Many editors believe it is a generic cleanup template. In addition, the large scope of the template makes it difficult for editors, especially ones that are new to wikification, to figure out exactly what needs to be improved. In the future, instead of {{Wikify}}, the following templates should be used. (Please feel free to suggest more)

Note that as a full protected template, there is no TfD tag on this one. What is the policy for TfD tags on highly visible templates (19,000 articles)? If we do still tag them, can an administrator do that for me? Ryan Vesey

Note: This editor has been tagging a lot of templates and category pages with additional categories for WikiProject Wikify, even though they have nothing to do with Wikifying. Please take into consideration, that this editor might have some misplaced ideas. Debresser (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Which tags will be included in the project can be adjusted. The discussion here is about the Wikify tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this template falls into a category where the meaning is too vague and unclear especially to casual users the purpose of the template is unclear. The template does allow for a reason, but that just adds another level of burdon to using it and the majority of the time there is a more specific template that applies to the reasoning. If kept I recommend the usage instructions be clarified to use it only if another more specific tag isn't available.
    talk) 15:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • {{Dead end}} should be used for pages where the only concern is lack of wiki-links. Ryan Vesey 15:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I find that a less helpful template, that is not what one thinks of when one thinks it needs more links. They think this page needs to be wikified. I would never think oh this is probably called dead end. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had forgotten about part of the discussion earlier, but it may be possible to redirect {{Wikify}} to dead end instead of deleting it. That said, it needs to be deprecated so that the backlog can be cleared before that happens. Alternatively, Dead end could be redirected to the Wikify template which could only mention wikilinks. Initial consensus was that having Wikify only refer to lack of wikilinks could be confusing because wikifying an article deals with much more than that. Ryan Vesey 15:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be fine with either of those options. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Deprecate and redirect to {{
    Deadend}} now expanded to catch no only pages with no links but pages with few links. This means it fully covers the initial purpose of Wikify. At the same point Wikify expanded to cover more stuff like bold, infoboxes, etc. We had two options: Or we add parameters to Wikify or we create more specific templates. For some time we tried both ways. We made Wikify's wording more specific and created some extra templates. Keeping Wikify in its new form makes it redundant to {{Multiple issues}}. The current trend in the community is to have more specific tags so that the editors who see them can actually do something and now when to remove them. Generic templates like "Needs fix" don't help. We had a lot of discussions in the past for similar cases. Wikify has served its purpose in the past. Now we have to move on. Use deadend for wikilinks, rename it if you like. Use Multiple issues to add more tasks. Discuss in the WikiProject Wikify which tasks it will cover. The generic wikify template is useless in this context. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Of course after deleting we can make a redirect to deadend or what the new name will be. As soon as we decide that we need a tag solely for wikilinks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is too specific for this discussion, but we could always redirect both to {{
Wikilinks}} (a currently non-existent template). Ryan Vesey 15:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh I like that idea. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to move {{
Wikilinks}} barring opposition here or does the discussion need to occur elsewhere? I see no reason to change anything in the template. Ryan Vesey 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
How about changing the image from File:Dead End sign.svg to File:Ambox wikify.svg seeing as the template would not exclusively deal with pages with zero links ("dead ends"). benzband (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking having {{
Wikilinks}} and {{Dead end}} as separate templates might be beneficial because a dead end page might be more urgent than one simply lacking enough. The wikilinks tag would have the Ambox wikify and Dead end would retain dead end. What do you think? Ryan Vesey 23:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes that's a good idea :) benzband (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of merging them was rejected but the discussion was very short at this point. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, that discussion didn't include what else would take Wikify's place. I would have opposed it too. Ryan Vesey 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was not wide enough for the proposals it made (adding categories to many templates and category pages), and was dominated by one quite aggressive editor. I think that discussion is no indication of anything. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate/rename. as nom suggests. This is a very sensible rationalization, wifify is used at least as often as a synonym for dead end already. No objection to any necessary readjustments of explanatory text and layout, I simply support the rationalization. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep according to what the template states, you should be able to use this to tag articles lacking wikiformatting (which is not the same as wikilinks) , so this would work with unformatted articles, PRE formatted articles, HTML formatted articles, space/tab/carriagereturn formatted articles -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have specific tags for every form of wikifycation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikifying has always meant adding internal links. If {{Dead end}} would be nominated, I would agree. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please show me what work you have done with Wikification that shows that wikifying has always meant adding internal link. Your lack of knowledge of the process does not mean that is the case. Ryan Vesey 18:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, your confusion shows exactly why this template does need to be deprecated and redirected. Editors do not understand what it means. Ryan Vesey 18:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You are around on Wikipedia 1.5 years. I over 5 years. So please don't be insolent.
  2. I change my reason for keep: Wikification is more than just adding internal links. But instead of adding 4 different tags to a beginner's article, asking for e.g. adding internal links, references markup, a lead section and certain stylistic improvements, it is more concise and just as clear to add the Wikify template. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or the {{multiple issues}} template, with the four reasons in it. This forces the tagger to specify what needs to be done, and thus helps the folks who run around cleaning it all up. benzband (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The meaning of the template is so vague that it's rampantly misused. To wit:
    Typed link, ‪Hephaestus‬, hypnotherapy, and Kenya Defence Forces all seem to be misusing it as {{cleanup}} (itself a problematic template) — those articles are all messy in various ways, but none need "wikilinks[…]any form of wiki-markup, such as standard headings and layout, including the addition of infoboxes and other templates, or bolding/italicizing of text." The most common definition of "wikify" seems to be "add wikilinks", which already has its own template in the form of {{dead end}}. Every other form of cleanup has its own template, leaving {{wikify}} a confused, ambiguous template with no foreseeable purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I call for a procedural close of this discussion. The nominator has significantly changed his proposal after all of the above discussions, and it is now impossible to keep track of the replies as they relate to the present proposal. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? A minor change was made at the beginning of this (prior to your keep !vote by the way). Quit your
pointy disruptions. Ryan Vesey 23:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed with the pointlessness. Even with the minor change, people are still !voting delete, so closing it would just be needless bureaucracy. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion is OK so far. The question is:
  • If wikify is only about wikilinks and {{dead end}} has changed to cover pages with few wikilinks, why we need both templates?
  • If wikify is not only about wikilinks why not describe exactly what is about by proving more explicit templates?
In both cases, today's wikify tag is useless but to the existence of {{dead end}} and {{multiple issues}}. The details: which tags are part of wikify, what is going to be the new name of {{dead end}} don;t have to be discussed here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recall this is a not a majority vote. The closing admin will check the discussion and even if some people !voted for deletion if the only meant "deprecate" this is going to be the result. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The word wikify is many times mis-interpreted. I have seen many those articles with this tag which doesn't needs it. Breaking it will make this less frequent and will also provide a great help to wikifiers. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template is one of the most confusing in Wikipedia. It overlaps with {{
    Copyedit}}, {{Dead end}} and many other tags. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, or redirect to {{Dead end}}; this way, we can make a dent in the massive backlog of articles Twinkle-tagged by editors who used a catchall tag instead of taking the time to find a more-specific one. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no way that the template can be deleted or redirected with its current ~20,000 transclusion count, much of which (per the wording of the template) consists of articles which had additional reasons (in terms of general wikicode improvement) beyond the addition of links to be tagged. I'm unimpressed with the recent campaign to do away with any general "this article makes basic MoS errors that need to be corrected" templates (including {{
    copyedit}}) which seems to have resulted from a general sentiment that if only we don't have tags on an article then its problems will magically go away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Depreciate. Notwithstanding my response to Chris above, he is right to point out that to redirect to {{dead end}} now would result in a significant error rate. One way or another this template is redundant – to {{cleanup}} if this is intended to be generic, and {{dead end}} if it's intended to denote a lack of wikilinks. But in the short term we should curb the template's use and encourage relevant alternatives. —WFC— 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I use this tag (and the associated category) to find articles that need cleanup quite frequently. That is, the tag helps me to find articles that need Wikification, and then because someone placed the tag, I clean up the article. This is a highly useful tag, and I am at a loss as to why someone would want to delete it. I see no use in making it harder for me and other people to find articles that need cleanup. --Jayron32 18:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and redirect to {{Dead end}}. As someone who participates in wikification drives, I find it far too vague. The proposal for more specific tags is a good one. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect/Rename: The word "Wikify" has always been unclear despite being a Wikifier myself. Does it mean adding internal links, formatting articles to Wikipedia guidelines and standards or just cleaning up the article? It is better to get rid of Wikipedia-specific terminology whenever possible and replace it with normal English words. GizzaTalk © 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix - Wikify, the template, is an absolute mess. There are 8 functions which must be checked for each article, most of them have their own tags. Wikify, the template, should either be modified to support direct Wikification notices from taggers like AWB as defacto 'multiple-issues' style concern, or if there are no other tags, leave a single clean up template. Multiple issues functions in much the same way. Rather then opt for the removal of the Wikify project with 10 different banners which could kill the page flow and distract the reader, a clean and concise option should be made for viewing it. One which will instruct how to correct via a link with a one or two word notice, or even something as simple as an 'A7' or 'G3'-like code system. Detection of these issues should be made a priority afterwards so Wikipedia can have a concentrated effort to fix these problems. So I wouldn't be opposed to 10 categories of tagged pages all under the Wikify project. It may be the easiest way to fix the most glaring errors quickly and deal with the problems once and for all. Rather than play 'tag' and 'untag'. 03:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. "Wikify" is wiki in-speak and casual readers/editors will have no clue what it means. {{dead end}} is much more descriptive and serves the same purpose. The wording is simple and might encourage casual users to jump in and improve the article. NB: Anyone who knows what "wikify" means will probably also be able to recognize an article that needs to be wikified when they see it, even without the template. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 04:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find deadend to be more narrow...too narrow. Wikification is much more than what deadend describes. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 05:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that wikification is more than adding wikilinks. The think is that we can describe this to new editors more explicitly with more specific tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - The Wikify tag, as currently used (or possibly misused) is a grab-bag of issues. It's sometimes completely unclear what improvement has been requested and its replacement with a set of tags that cover the same territory will make it much clearer what cleanup work needs to be done. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate Many users use Wikify incorrectly, which makes it more confusing and difficult to correct the problem that the users are noting as needing a fix. — Preceding
    talk • contribs
    )
  • Delete - Wikify is a collection of duties or tasks that need to be done. At a glance an experienced Wikipedia might tell what is required to be done, while on the other hand there is this confusion of what needs to be done on the article to new contributors or the not_so_experienced Wikipedians so to say. Having templates that are specific on what exactly needs to be done to improve an article would be a better replacement for Wikify.
    Talk to Me. Email Me. 12:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Fix - I believe that rather then deleting it that it should be fixed because I have seen it used on many pages extremely well and it tells me what to try and do but other times I see lazy buggers just paste it there and hope someone else fixes it without telling them what needs to be fixed. I do think that the dead link idea is a good one though LunashyFriendship letters.write a friendship letter 06:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depreciate -- A complete reformation of the wikification system is needed, and we can start with this template. {{
    Talk·Contribs 00:06, 20 August 2012 (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.

Template:Js-demo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as

G7 by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Js-demo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear (to me). DH85868993 (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2012 (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.

Template:Storm stats

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as

G2 by Panyd (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Storm stats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Storm stats 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2012 (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.

Template:Electorate result

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete

G7 --j⚛e deckertalk 04:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Electorate result (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Electorate result summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as creator. These were part of an experimental method of showing seat results that didn't end up being adopted, and I forgot to get rid of them when they were done. Frickeg (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2012 (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.

Template:Military aircraft by nationality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military aircraft by nationality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2012 (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.

Template:PremierofChina

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_10&oldid=1160894702"