Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 28 November 2011

November 26

Template:VIT University

Template:VIT University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only two target articles this navbox is quite pointless Muhandes (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete It is likely that the merge proposal at Talk:VIT University will result in the two articles on individual schools being merged into the main article in accord with WP:UNIGUIDE. Even if the merges do not occur, there is no reason to have a navigation box just for the departments within a university. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Zodsign1

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Template:Zodsign1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not an appropriate use of templates. Repetitive information should be in a parent article. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete and salt - this isn't a template, it's an article masquerading as one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• delete an abuse of the template system. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete content should be in Astrological _sign, shirley --109.151.199.14 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Per The Bushranger Nformation 21:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete with fire. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Putting a mini-article into a template in order to spam the content to many articles, where a link would suffice, is a serious abuse of the template system. Hans Adler 23:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete The template is being misused to duplicate a significant amount of text between articles—a misuse of templates, and a misunderstanding of how articles should be organized. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - though make the text much more concise. Alternatively, please suggest a way to differentiate between a tropical sign, a sidereal sign, a constellation and an IAU zone defined by a constellation as this is integral to the description of each sign. The text will be easier to administer and reach agreement if it is standardised for each of the 12 signs especially as these pages are frequently vandalised by ISP editors. Robert Currey talk 02:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's all irrelevant, templates are specifically *not* to be used as mini-articles. What you are discussing is outside the scoop of this TfD discussion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a WP rule or guideline that states this? If so please direct me. Robert Currey talk 18:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Among the rules is Misplaced Pages:Template namespace#Usage: "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article". Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You could write an article on that, and then link to it. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Subst and Delete article masquerading as a template. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit, this isn't a template, it's a one-sided mini-article. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I had to spend a few minutes wondering where the template WAS. This is clearly an attempt to force cruft (or whatever the word currently is) into every article, hideously contrived. doktorb _words 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, per Hans Adler. bobrayner (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete:Misuse of the template format to spam poorly sourced in-universe cruft across multiple articles. This mini-article should be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT: Has no business being here now or ever again Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 13:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - the use of the template is purely a matter of practicality. The astrology project has an active discussion on whether information of this sort needs to be present on every astrology zodiac-page. The overwhelming consensus there is that it should, and there should be consistency in the information presented. If the information needs to be amended, that can be done easily by one change to one template, rather than requiring complicated rewrites on all of the 12-part series of articles. -- Zac Δ 14:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus my left foot. It's clear that the consensus you speak of comes from one-sided Astrology project members, not the greater community (the greater community is participating here). It's been suspected that this so-called consensus is the result of meatpuppetry, and there are threads at ANI and elsewhere concerning the POV pushing of the project. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have commented on ANI (just before I commented here) - there was no votestacking or meatpuppetry involved. Suggestions that there have been are out of place and if they have influenced the negative reations to this thread then this thread should be closed and restarted with a more honest account of the situation under scrutiny. Now if you want to push that suggestion please do, on ANI, and if you want to suggest that I am involved in meatpuppetry then be clear and direct, so I know what I am defending myself against. The difference between the astrology project members and this is that the project members are more informed and fully aware of the reasons for the information - that background discussion has been omitted here, and replaced by spurious suggestions that something innapropriate lies behind the decision to present this information. What would that be? Deliberate disclosure of relevant, verifiable facts? -- Zac Δ 15:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Revelant, verifiable facts"? You're joking, right? The template is clearly nothing but cruft Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don’t know what “cruft” means; but I can see from the titles of the pages that they are intended to present information concerning astrological beliefs and the principles of those beliefs. Therefore the information is directly relevant and it is reliably referenced, and verifiable - if you think not, please specify why not where the content is being evaluated, so your objection can be understood.

So no, I am not joking. I am one of the few editors who has shown themselves willing to commit to the replacement of garbage content with sourced information that the reader is likely to find interesting and informative. Now other experienced editors with good contribution histories have shown themselves willing to do the same, and it would be a wonderful thing if these attempts to block all contributions to those pages were ended, which might allow that to happen. Why should I need to joke anyway – it’s laughable enough that we have all this squandering of good time and energy, over many threads and discussions, for fear that a few astrological sun sign pages might actually present the arguments as they are understood within the context that they are supposed to be representing (ie., the astrological one). -- Zac Δ 17:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Zac, "sound information" doesn't belong in a template. No information belongs in a template. Templates are one of two things: a) boilerplate notices, or b) lists of links to related articles. This template, even if it had reliably sourced information, should still be deleted as a violation of the general idea of what a template is. I will again say this: You don't use templates as repositories of large amounts of text. You use articles for that. If you think the same portion of text needs to be in multiple articles (and I don't believe this doesn't), you copy and paste the text, or link to another article with the text. You don't use a template for that. And if you are unfamiliar with the term cruft, see WP:CRUFT Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides, it's very hard not to think the following when seeing this totally non-standard use of a template: Aha! They found a quotation from a leading figure (C.G. Jung) in something which in the general public does not yet have its deserved pseudoscience image, expressing a belief in astrology. Obviously this must be broadcast to the largest number of readers possible. Since every single Zodiac sign article has way more readers than the main astrology article, they found it best to spam it into these 12 articles under a thinly veiled excuse, and the template works as a vehicle for that. Hans Adler 18:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And with this I suspect you reveal what is really jittering nerves here. It’s not the use of the template at all is it? It’s only what the template says. What - give reference to the fact that some persons who are not known for stupidity have contemplated astrological principles and spoken of them without a sense of ridicule? Can’t have that now can we? This is information that must be censored, despite the fact that it succinctly and perfectly explains the difference in concept between the uses made of the tropical and sidereal zodiac. It never crossed my mind that someone would object to this directly relevant quote because it came from Jung, but now I understand much more clearly – the content doesn’t make the subject look imbecilic enough: it presents ‘proper’ astrological information, and some people might even assume that it has occupied serious thought during its thousands of years of philosophical history. Yes, I can see why that would be considered dangerous to the world order of some Wikipedians. -- Zac Δ 20:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - It makes a lot of sense to use this template since some kind of explanation of this sort needs to be included on those 12 pages.Minerva20 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How did you find this discussion? Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not required to answer that question, for the sake of transparency, I came to this page via: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Astrology and previously was on the Aries page. As regards finding it, I've been here before and on other pages making comments and editing. I find it a strange question and I would like to know why you ask it. I haven't been questioned like this on any of the other pages such as computing, internet, where I often visit and sometimes comment. Minerva20 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: User has made only a handful of contributions to WP; almost all are related to Astrology articles Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete A redirect should be provided, not a repeated gigantic mountain of text in every article. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, de-mag hard drives and nuke from orbit (plus salting) Stealth article posing as a template. Re-write drive sectors with 0xDEADBEEF. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Art, would you support SALTing it? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How did i miss that? Absolutely support salting. Corrected. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy, if there is need to retain the history so that the text can be used properly within an article. Agree with nominator that this is not a proper use for templates. I can't support SALTing, though, until there's some sign of disruptive recreation. If the template is deleted, I'm prepared to trust that the contributors here will not disrupt Misplaced Pages by ignoring community consensus. --Moonriddengirl 20:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Webgpl

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

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 03:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Kremlin.ru

Template:Kremlin.ru (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 03:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Use is conceivable; would be annoying to have to recreate the template (and locate the relevant authorization letter PDF, OTRS, etc.). --Cybercobra (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Kopimi

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

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 03:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:JPL Image Copyright

Template:JPL Image Copyright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 03:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:HABS2

Template:HABS2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 03:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:GeoGratis

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

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 02:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Geograph

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

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 02:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:ESO

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

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 02:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:CeCILL

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

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 02:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:CDDL

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

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 02:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-AR-Deputies

Template:PD-AR-Deputies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 02:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:APL

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

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 02:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Agência Brasil

Template:Agência Brasil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s 02:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)