| Revision as of 10:45, 22 June 2011 editMagioladitis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers908,576 edits →Template:Empty section: a reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:05, 22 June 2011 edit undoChesdovi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,098 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| <!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. | <!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. | ||
| {{subst:drv2 | |||
| |page=] | |||
| |xfd_page=] | |||
| |reason=The rfc was not conclusive to warrant deletion of the category. | |||
| }} ~~~~ | |||
| Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> | Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> | ||
Revision as of 11:05, 22 June 2011
< 2011 June 21 Deletion review archives: 2011 June 2011 June 23 >22 June 2011
Template:Empty section
OK. This is the first time I do this and I generally trust JPG-GR as a good closer. But I think this close doesn't reflect the consensus. First some stats. During the discussion we has
- 18 delete for we should not have empty sections or we should comment them out (the skeleton should not be visible)
- 1 strong delete (if necessary add an "empty sections" tag on the top)
- 2 delete and use expand section instead (including nominator)
- 2 weak delete (same argument)
- 17 keep as usefull
- 1 keep with no explanation
- 5 strong keep
- 1 keep but change the wording
- 1 reword to "meaningless"
This means that during the discussion the main discussion was whether to have empty sections or not. The editors were divided on that. Only 1 editor really suggested to use "Expand section" instead. Moreover, the last suggestion was provocative and I tried to answer to this but I didn't have the chance because the discussion closed. Instead of just merging two templates because the populate the same tracking category we could change the tracking category of the one of the two for instance. Most of the half of the participants think we should have skeleton sections visible and work on them. Most of those that were in favour of deleting think we should not use skeleton articles because the pages look ugly, nobody is obliged to use a specific structure (this is partially true depending on the nature of the page). The big problem with "Expand" tags was that there were not specific of what is has to be done and I bet soon someone will propose deletion of "Expand section" too. Tracking a page with no content and adding some content is easy. Tracking a age that needs expansion, adding some data and deciding whether to keep the expand tag or not is not that easy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- AfD is not a head count. With the exception of your own comments, the majority of the arguments to keep were of low quality ("somebody might find this useful", "don't go deleting templates") or didn't adequately address the predominant deletion rationale (that while empty headers are not forbidden, and can still be used to structure articles, having a template for that purpose goes too far in encouraging people to work that way). Indeed, very few of the comments to keep did anything to address the deletion rationale. The close was an adequate reflection of the debate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it is not a head count. I did the calculations to show that the discussion was not exactly on your initial argument but on skeleton articles in general. I understand the problem you describe and my response was the we could just delete the empty section from the Hyacinthe Rigaud page. Articles on painters don't follow a strong pattern that would explain these empty sections. But, I am thinking the following: If I see that Hyacinthe Rigaud has empty sections I might take a look to check if the empty section are really needed or not. IF the page was tagged with "Expand section" I won't bother because I don't know much stuff on painters. I can work with making pages look nicer and constructed but I am not very good in adding real text. Till now I 've seen using "What transcludes here" to detect pages with empty sections that's why I haven't noticed it shares a tracking category with "Expand section". Moreover, if 20k pages in a category is chaos we could just divide them to get better results. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)