Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 30

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. There is certainly no consensus for deletion here, and seems to be consensus that the template should be kept in some form. I will leave up any mergers to future discussion and/or bold action. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:NASA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There's no need to clutter articles with this template. An edit summary saying that the material is adapted from the NASA web site is enough. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is what references are for; if we used templates like this for every common PD source we'd be choking on them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Furthermore, this template is easily confused with {{nasa}}, a redirect to {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 09:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to {{PD-USGov-NASA}} to avoid the above-mentioned confusion. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singularity 18:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion was closed earlier by me, but has been reopened since new info has come to light; see [1]. Singularity 18:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Using templates such as this has been standard practice for some time and is encouraged. See here and here. Also, as can be seen from the list I linked this is just one of a series of third-party attribution templates. I'm of the opinion that if these templates are not to be used anymore then that’s a decision that needs to be made for all of them simultaneously and not on a individual basis. Acer (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that we should be putting attribution templates in articles unless the source requires it. This is a collaborative project, and these sources are just other contributors to it. What's worse is that these templates make having proper citations seem less important, and without that there's no good way to differentiate between what NASA backs up and what is unsourced. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Use a reference instead. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Acer's new information, subject to revision if different information becomes available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's worth acknowledging the use of a public domain source to avoid claims of copyvio and to aid new editors in updating the article. I don't know why we'd consider having {{PD-USGov-NASA}} as a template to acknowledge images but not this one to acknowledge text. TJRC (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's because images are under various licenses, but we know that all article text is under the GFDL. Leave a note in the edit summary saying that you copied the material from the NASA web site. We don't list all the users that contributed to an article in the article itself, why would we list the other sources that contributed? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – attribution is not legally required here, but it's good practice. See for example {{1911}}, which is used across the project, and can help identify NPOV problems/wikification needs associated with using content that's not original. I suggest moving the name of this template to something less confusable with the name of the image template, though. Gracenotes^T § 16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC) / For example, using Template:NASA-text instead of this (nominated for deletion below). Gracenotes^T § 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If we are going to rename it, how about PD-NASA, NASA-PD, NASA-website, NASA-publication depending on if it will remain a "NASA website content" template or morph into a "NASA publication" template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • {{1911}} also implies that there is POV or outdated information when this is often not the case, and all of these templates make it difficult to separate what the public domain source backs up and what is unsourced. Use proper citations instead, and add standard cleanup templates like {{POV}} or {{update}} if there is a problem. Attribute the public domain source in an edit summary just like we attribute everyone else.
  • That said, I would not object to using this as a talk page template to keep track of articles where we have copied from others. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That's how it's being used right now (...) There wouldn't necessarily be POV concerns with NASA (although there may be), but wikification would be a good reason to keep track of NASA text adaptions. And good record-keeping is a Good Thing – in case a commercial site uses NASA content too and doesn't attribute, we won't have to dig through an entire edit history to prove that the source of the material is, in fact, public domain. Gracenotes^T § 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, so could we change all these attribution templates into talk page templates? That would still allow record-keeping without making citations seem less important or implying that there are POV issues, outdated information, etc. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• MERGE {{NASA}}, {{NASA-text}}, and {{PD-USGov-NASA}} into a single "grouped" template like "Otheruses" or "redirect." NASA1 would be for pictures, NASA2 for text, NASA3 for web site data, and NASA4 and beyond left for future expansion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• All the other templates listed here are used in mainspace why shouldn’t it be the same for this one? These attribution templates are important because although we're not legally required to provide attribution to public domain material it is in the best interest of the project to do so. The use of references does not suffice for this, it is one thing when you do some paraphrasing using, as reference (hence the word references), an original text and another completely different thing when you just ctrl+c/ctrl+v the text in its original form. In the former case references are sufficient; in the latter there should be both references and attribution to avoid calls of plagiarism. Also, the public domain sources are not just like any editor that’s made a contribution due to the simple fact that they never chose to contribute in the first place and while they certainly hold no legal right to persecute us for it (they hold no rights whatsoever over the work if it is PD) they certainly can badmouth us for not giving proper attribution which is standard practice in both academic and editorial circles.. Seen as how simple it is to provide proper attribution (a two line template at the bottom of the article) I really don’t see why we shouldn’t do it. PS: David I don’t really see what you mean, are you simply suggesting a naming convention? Acer (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If I understand you correctly, you're saying that as soon as we copy one sentence from a public domain work a notice attributing that work must be permanently attached to the article. This seems really excessive and creates an undue link between Wikipedia and the original work. For example, {{1911}} implies that the Wikipedia article is out of date. All of these templates imply that information without citations is backed up by the public domain work.
  • I'd be fine with using categories or talk page templates for bookkeeping, but I don't think that articles that use work from outside Wikipedia should have to carry a special notice, especially not a permanent one. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I certainly don't mean permanently, but just as long as the copied material is there in its original form, once it is rewritten (paraphrased) then the templates can be removed. I do agree with you that these are no substitute for references, and as for your concern that it might be interpreted as covering the parts of the article that lack references, I believe it can be addressed by the use of (Citation needed) tags. Acer (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• These templates are probably OK for articles copied word-for-word from other sources. However, once a significant amount of user-created content is mixed in then the template should be removed. Referencing back to the original source will do more to avoid calls of plagiarism than you think. We don't need to have an explicit note in the article for a single sentence copied from another source with a proper citation. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok we seem to be reaching a consensus; I also agree that we don’t need templates if the third-party content is minimal. How much of an article needs to be from somewhere else for it to include a tag is up in the air, but I'd say a third or perhaps slightly less would be a good rule of thumb, what do you think? Acer (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So Keep it is then. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd lean towards half-and-half as a rule of thumb. If most of the article was written by Wikipedians (as is the case with most of the {{1911}} articles by now), then just make sure that there are proper references and don't bother with the explicit attribution template. Fair enough? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Half and half within a section or article sounds OK. I changed the template from This article... to This article or section... to allow for cases where 10% of the article but 50% of a given section fits the criteria. For what it's worth, I also updated the NOINCLUDE tags on the two unprotected NASA attribution templates and requested an identical change to Template:PD-USGov-NASA. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to use this template in sections, I get the feeling its going to clutter them.. I think its better just to have it at the bottom of the page (ie: in an unobtrusive location). How about one third for large articles and half for smaller one? Ie: a stub or start class article would need to have half of its content from a third party source for it to have the tag while a in a larger article one third would do (which can easily be two sections or more) hows that? Oh and David we're probably going to get rid of the nasa-text template since its redundant Acer (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

By putting it in the section, it makes it clear exactly which section is largely copied from existing text, and makes it clear that the rest of the article is not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really a much more elegant solution to just use citations. Citations make it very clear what is from where, and a few citations go a long way towards preventing allegations of plagiarism.

DEPRICATE???: If this is the case, the tag should be marked "depricated" to discourage future use, then every article that uses this tag should be researched, proper citations written, and the tag removed. When the tag is no longer in use, then it should be deleted. The same goes for {{NASA-text}}.

If we're going to use a special attribution template too, just put it once at the bottom of the article to avoid clutter and redundancy with the citations. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of ending this discussion I'll settle for a your 50-50 as a general rule of thumb, as long as editors have latitude to deviate from this in particular cases (such as large articles where even less the 50% can mean a very large body of text). I also agree that it should be used only once at the bottom of the article and that should the section that forced the inclusion of the template be rewritten then it should be removed, moreover the NASA-text template should be deleted since its redundant. Hows that? Acer (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

NOT Redundant: {{NASA-text}} as written is not redundant, but it could be easily merged into this. NASA-text applies to dead-tree NASA material, this template does not. The current text of NASA-text covers both, so a redirect might be sufficient. I think a merge or redirect to NASA-text would be non-controversial - I plan on opening such a discussion after this discussion is closed. Personally, I prefer a merge, with some nice NOWIKI comments strongly encouraging users to rewrite the text, limit themselves to small quotes, and use citations whenever they see this template in use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean. Lets close this as keep and close NASA-text below as merge. Then we make this one more general to include dead-tree material. Acer (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming "close as merge" means "close as keep, with intent to merge soon but not until we get {{NASA}} done right" then I'll go along with that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I meant we merge NASA-text into this one. Acer (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be OK with keeping this template if we provide clear instructions to cite everything and remove the template once the 50/50 threshold has been reached. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright I can live with that, I think we got a deal :) Acer (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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 Userfied per author request. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 08:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:CarverNavBar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Userfy, user navigation bar. — Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why my navigation bar was flagged so I am at a loss as to what to discuss. Can someone tell me why this has been done? Have I gone afoul of some Wiki policy or what? CarverM (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a user navigation bar, not for articles. The Template: namespace is for templates that are for articles. You may create templates for your user pages in your userspace. Cheers, Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 06:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Userfy (to User:CarverM/CarverNavBar). Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 06:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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. Singularity 04:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Doomwiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Egamia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused subsets of {{wikia}}. — Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unused. Gracenotes^T § 03:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unused and inappropriate usage of template space to promote a commercial website. Eleven Special (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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 speedy deleted by User:Nat. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Main Page Body (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused template, previously used in an undiscussed change to the Main Page for which there was no consensus. As such it is not likely to be used again. Even if the change were to be accepted, this template has only one purpose - to duplicate Main Page. There is nothing we can do with this template which cannot be done by editing directly the Main Page itself. Strong delete.. Pegasus «C¦T» 13:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• No contest, Delete you could have T3ed it. nat.utoronto 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:2nd chance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Most of these reasons are stolen from Mangojuice. If someone actually takes us up on the request, then it's a pain to compare it with the article (especially since we don't know what version of the article they started from). The process also tends to land their user talk page in assorted mainspace categories where it doesn't belong. And finally, it seems to have very little actual use. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: If you find it hard to compare diffs, then improve the process/instructions. The concept's still perfectly sound -- how else do you intend to sort out the trolls from the truly remorseful in appeals when there's no previous editing history for a blocked user. As for "little use", that's probably a gross misconception because the template is often substituted and talk pages of banned users who don't take up their offer of a second chance will have their talk pages routinely deleted after a few months of inactivity. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The instruction for the blocked user to make an edit, then have an admin decide whether to unblock based on that single edit is simply a tutorial on how to game our blocking system. Vandals will learn to "make bad edits, then make a good one and ask for unblock" or similar. (And no, changing the number of good edits required doesn't change the conclusion that this would be BAD.) Pegasus «C¦T» 13:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: Administrators still exercise personal discretion as whether an edit is sufficient enough or not. I do not unblock anyone over mere cosmetic or spelling corrections. I need to see at least two new paragraphs that demonstrate good research. Don't mistake this template for a free pass or policy. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. Although there are very few editors who are blocked, and yet are capable of making a "recovery", so to speak, there still exists the prospect of rehabilitation for a small number. The 2nd chance template aids administrators attempting to extract the ability to edit well and recover from a block. I know that if it didn't exist, I would simply implement what is says by hand when issuing a "second chance"; why delete a template that's just going to get used anyway? To that end, I would move to keep this template, on the basis of its unique usefulness—even if it doesn't get used very often. Anthøny 14:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, it doesn't seem unreasonable that admins be expected take the time to respond personally when opening discussion with a repentant user, considering that it isn't particularly common. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I use this template often: the statement that it is rarely used probably is misconstrued due to substitution. Vandal-only accounts that try to get unblocked usually give one of two reasons for unblocking: A direct attack upon the blocking admin or Wikipedia in general, upon which their talk pages gets protected; or a "I didn't mean it, I want to help, waa waa" kind of reason that is bascially left up to how trusting the admin is. Which, after dealing with vandals for a few weeks, probably isn't very much at all. This template allows us to assume good faith for these sorts of reasons while still protecting the integrity of the project. If a user is actually willing to make good contributions, they'll make the requested changes and become a contributing member of the project. If they were just hoping to catch a gullible admin so they could continue vandalizing, it will likely show in that they won't do it at all, or they'll botch it so badly nobody in their right mind would consider unblocking them. Generally, the source article won't have had many changes to it since the blocked user finished, so it's easy enough to compare the "improvements" to the current version. If not, the MediaWiki software allows you to compare diffs between two different pages: See this link comparing the current versions of {{2nd chance}} and {{unblock}}; all you have to do is copy into the URL the correct revision ID. Difficulty in using a template shouldn't be a reason to delete it, and in fact the nomination focuses more on the resulting process and not template itself; the nominator himself is also not an administrator who has never had cause to use this template so would not be aware of how useful it can potentially be. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Although I don't use it, I recognize that some, more experienced admins, use this to give users a true second chance. If even banned users are theoretically redeemable, then so are users who are just blocked, and this gives them a chance to redeem themselves. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I've used the template many times. As Hersfold says, I find it useful to determine whether a user means to be a productive contributor or not. Sandstein (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I can see how this template might help with making a decision about unblocking a blocked user. I think Hersfold has a good point; it helps to AGF with a blocked user. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 22:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete I have always disliked this template; it is simply asking a user to jump through hoops; it smacks of doing "penance" for a block, and since blocks aren't punishment, there is no need to atone for anything. Still, if others use it extensively, I would not entirely object to its being kept, except that I despise it personally... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I haven't used it. That doesn't mean I won't. It seems to exist for a valid reason. Erroneous categorizations can be fixed by simply editing them out of the page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this entire thread has gone beyond the scope of a typical TfD and therefore should be closed. A discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard would better suit those seeking reform of the procedure and policies regarding unblocking. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It is being used by multiple editors, it is not running afoul of any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and offers a way to improve the project by reducing repetitive tasks. Whether or not you agree with the particular wording of the template in its current form is more an issue to be discussed on the template's talk page, not an issue of whether or not the template should be deleted altogether. As a talk page template, it is appropriate to use it by subst'ing it, otherwise it's a great opportunity for a vandal to really muck things up by modifying it and changing the meaning or content altogether, so I wouldn't place much weight on how many times it shows up as transcluded. Neil916 (Talk) 08:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I use this template quite a bit when answering requests, and it is a good way to judge whether a user wants to contribute positively --Chris 10:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: It is a very useful template, and some people actually do take advantage of it when offered to them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I find this template very useful and disagree with the nominator's statement that "it seems to have very little actual use". I have seen it used numerous times, and have used it myself a number of times. This is a way to give those editors who actually wish to contribute a way to demonstrate what they can do. Anyone who is going to "game the system" would simply wait out the autoblock and create a new account. - auburnpilot talk 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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 - Nabla (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Mallee Football League 2008 Rounds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A navbox linking articles on the various "rounds" in the round robin season of an Australian rules football league of very limited local notability only. The linked articles are extremely unlikely to meet notability guidelines.. Mattinbgn\^talk 10:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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 close and defer to result of discussion above. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:NASA-text (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pretty much the same thing as Template:NASA was, see the previous deletion discussion. Instead of using this template, use edit summaries to note where you're copying the material from and provide proper citations back to the source material.. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Template:NASA has been relisted, we should wait for the discussion there to close, though I don't see the point of having two templates for the same thing. Acer (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Acer on deferring discussion. In any case, KEEP or MERGE {{NASA}}, {{NASA-text}}, and {{PD-USGov-NASA}} into a single "grouped" template like "Otheruses" or "redirect." NASA1 would be for pictures, NASA2 for text, NASA3 for web site data, and NASA4 and beyond left for future expansion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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.