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.
Well, this template seems to be its own hypocrite. Once a comment is made in a discussion, the editor is then "involved" in the discussion. (However, there are several transclusions of this template, so all existences should probably be substituted prior to this template being deleted in order to not break anything.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think what it means is that whatever the discussion is about (e.g. an incident that found its way to WP:ANI) is something the commenting editor had no part in. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 23:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: Possibly, but how is the reader supposed to determine that based on the text that this template returns? In the template's current state, the hypocrisy stands, and editors who used this template in the past might not have been sure themselves the purpose of this template. I mean, I'm looking through the template's history, and it has only been edited by its creator (whom I respect, by the way), and the text that the template returns has always been set up as "comment from uninvolved whomever". In my opinion, the text would need be changed in some form or another, but either way, all currently existing transclusions would probably need to be substituted since we can only guess the true purpose of other editors who transcluded this template in the past. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really answer that, but I can say that's how I've always interpreted it. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that's how it's perceived in general, although it can be used to varying degrees of truthfulness so I guess I'm neutral in regard to this nomination. I don't really care what happens to it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 02:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrote this template back when I was doing a lot of work at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I used it to show that I wasn't involved in disputes I was trying to resolve there. There was a reluctance to call regular volunteers at DRN "clerks" or "mediators" etc., so this wording was an attempt to avoid that while still indicating that the user was attempting to resolve a dispute rather than continue it. It seems to have fallen out of favour at DRN, though, and I personally haven't used it for years now, so I don't mind if it's deleted. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 03:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless, though I don't agree with the contention in the nomination that commenting defeats the purpose of the template. We have processes like third opinionorrequests for comment where uninvolved opinions are welcomed. But a template that doesn't save you any time seems rather useless. I'd get rid of {{Non-administrator observation}} for the same reason - what's the point? --B (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it should be obvious to the discussion participants who was not previously involved and who wasn't. Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I think the editors who use this template (I use it often myself) use it to show that when there is an ongoing discussion between only a small group of people who are knowledgeable about the subject at hand, that the new editor has no personal stake in it. Erpertblah, blah, blah... 23:23, 18 April 2015 (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.
Since the guideline WP:INVOLVED exists, is this template really necessary? In its current state, it seems like an unnecessary, redundant extra push for WP:INVOLVED to be enforced. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to guidelines and clutters-up pages where multiple discussions are going at once (e.g. WP:RFD, which is where I saw this template). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 23:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator, I had hopes for it as a way to attract attention to discussions in need of close, instead of posts to AN, but it never really caught on, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which arrived after the template, really does what the template was meant to better anyway. May as well Delete it. Monty845 02:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with everyone else here; this seems redundant to WP:ANRFC. Although this template came first, ANRFC is what the community uses now. Ivanvector (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone monitoring these requests? If so, this seems useful and more efficient than listing the discussion on a noticeboard. --B (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@B: I'm not sure; however, if this template (and related category) were to be utilized properly, the wording in the template really should be tweaked slightly to sound like less of an push to enforce WP:INVOLVED and sound more like its initial intended purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how it is "a push to enforce WP:INVOLVED". If it said, in a blinking marquee, "NOTICE TO UNINVOLVED USERS", okay, that's a bit much, but it uses the word uninvolved one time and doesn't seem pushy at all. I'm assuming that the purpose of the template is to attract the attention of someone who is not involved in the discussion and that looks like what the text does. --B (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2015 (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.
Replace and delete per nominator's rationale. These templates offer no functionality not already covered by the generic template identified. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete as nominator is correct. I'm sure creating the WFL template made sense to me at the time (5 years ago this week!) but the demonstration proves it's replaceable. - Dravecky (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now replaced all transclusions. Alakzi (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2015 (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 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 discussion was merge. Although there is not a lot of discussion here, the templates have already been effectively merged, so I am closing this as merge. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The usage of these templates appears to be different. The first template is being used for event-level articles connected to a wider competition. The latter is being used on articles on wider competitions themselves. A better merge target for the "sport event" template would be Template:Infobox sport tournament (and plenty more in that category, like Template:Infobox FILA wrestling event), which is being used in the same circumstance. Between the nominated templates, the purpose and differences in display of champions of two sexes vs. three medallists of one sex is quite major. Also, another merge request with the multi-sport template is ongoing so it's probably not the best time to consider merging of these two different functions. SFB 21:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, too few common parameters. Frietjes (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 10:58, 7 April 2015 (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.
A single sentence of text that is not often changed and has no reason to exist as a template. Should be substituted everywhere and then deleted. Sandstein 11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TG. This is used in these four other templates, which should also be subst:ituted and deleted. Whoever's working on these solar eclipse articles has got to stop sticking every little thing in a template. Alakzi (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of eclipse articles. Do we want people tweaking intros to each until we have 72 versions of it? If someone is SURE what's a good intro paragraph, and pretend its never going to be edited or improved, substitution sounds good. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as a persuasive reason to keep. There's no reason to be restricting edits to these eclipse articles to a particular template (or 3) that I can see, and obscures otherwise running text. --Izno (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
indifferent. it is useful to have it one place if the language every changes. however, with the availability of bots, it wouldn't be that much trouble to use a bot if the intro every changes. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Obscures otherwise running text, and a single sentence can't be justified for its own template. --Izno (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - its give no sense not to have the same opening. Christian75 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so as to be as little nuisance as possible to people editing these articles. Thincat (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I went and found the relevant guideline at WP:TG wherein it says Templates should not normally be used to store article text.. I do not see this case as an extraordinary one and maintain my earlier !vote for deletion. --Izno (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, well. There is a good case for substing this template (as suggested in the nomination) but, to allow it to be substed in future articles, means it should be kept. That is where the nomination goes astray. The relevant guideline is "Templates ... that contain text which is not likely to ever be changed should be invoked with substitution (subst:)." The nomination seems to be making reference to this while not following to the consequence. Thincat (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's being transcluded, not substed. If there is reasoning to keep it simply for substing (and I'm skeptical even of that need, for much the same reason as for the applicable guideline), then all current usages should be substed and the template documentation updated. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the guidelines, templates are not normally used for article text. I see no reason to make an exception in this case. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should not need to repeat the same information on hundreds of articles. As long as there is a link to solar eclipse in the lead, readers can click that to get information on what an eclipse is. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it seems better to redesign the intro so it doesn't rely on templated prose to explain general information, unless a need for this is identified —PC-XT+ 06:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The need has been identified: unlike in most situations, with the solar eclipse articles, we have a basic explanation that ought to be given on all pages in a uniform manner. Some readers can click the eclipse article to get information on what an eclipse is, but some can't, and articles should be written with offline users in mind as well as online. Don't subst, because there's nothing wrong with changing this text: the point is that it shouldn't be changed in just one or two articles, but that it should be the same across articles, staying the same unless it's changed across all. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 10:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izno. Storing individual sentences of articles in templates is beyond ridiculous. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copying & pasting into the various articles that would contain this sentence is a better option. The work may be tedious, but if consensus is clear on what the sentence should say, there won't be a need to make sure the hundreds of articles that also contain this sentence reflect whichever edits may have occured to one of them. As I write this, though, I'm a little confused - why not just link back to Solar eclipse and put this sentence in the lead of that article? Why does it need to be placed in so many articles? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 05:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about it more and I understand what Nyttend is saying, but I still disagree with it. If someone is perusing a book of Wikipedia articles, obviously they won't have the luxury of clicking on solar eclipse if it piques their curiosity, but I'm assuming if such a book exists, it would also have the main solar eclipse article in it - rather prominently, I might add. I don't really see how a book would contain any of the articles that have this template on it and not have the main solar eclipse article as well. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 05:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more and I'm done: I also don't see how this should be such a special case. Plenty of books would exist that would mention concepts such as these that would benefit from being linked, but to an extent we trust that the reader more or less knows about concepts like these, which are rather basic, so we don't feel the need to add sentences like these to every article that mentions a topic that the reader might have the slightest chance of not understanding right off the bat. If the topics are connected intimately enough to whichever master topic a template like this describes, it is again very likely that the article on the master topic is included in the book as well (and not in an obscure manner). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 05:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, having ordinary article text in a template is pointless, and just confusing for editors of those articles. There is not some style or other guide or rule that says the article has to start this way, and there are many ways to write such an intro – some of which can be seen in the revisions of this template. This should be up to the editor(s) of the article, not be determined by a template which could change any time.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It is absolutely ridiculous (and not editor-friendly) to have ordinary text be in templates. I understand that much of the language is boilerplate, but this is a bridge too far for me. I agree with JohnBlackburne. Neutralitytalk 04:54, 17 April 2015 (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 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 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.
This appears to be the India wikiproject equivalent of the Template:Maintained template that was recently deleted after a lengthy discussion. It shares the problems of that template and, at least in my experience, serves little purpose. For example among articles on my watchlist that include this template:
Talk:Mahatma Gandhi: the editor adopting the page does not seem to have contributed to the article or the talk page; and the template adds to the already immense header-footer clutter on that talk page.
Talk:Subhas_Chandra_Bose: At least two of the editors of the three listed are inactive, and most of the main article contributors are absent.
If these were isolated examples, the issue could be dealt locally on each individual page, but I find it hard to imagine a page where a newbie user is not better off simply being guided to the wikiproject talk page and if needed the project's talk-page template could be modified to point this out. Abecedare (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just remove the temnplates from the pages where the users have left? It would take a while, but it would solve that problem.
I'm also leery of "let's guide a newbie user to a project talk page" as a general principle. We have quite a few inactive WikiProjects; even on those where some users actually edit there is no guarantee that a new user posting a query there will get a response. And really, how ridiculously bureaucratic is this to get help: "To get help, please go to some other page with a complicated abstract name, even though we told you that this is where you should have gone"? It's like calling customer service and having a recorded message give you another long number to call.
Really, from the logic of this nomination, you'd think Wikipedians were actually trying to make sure the project was hard for newcomers to get into. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just remove the templates... I addressed this in the last para of my nom. Also note that this is not a one-time clean-up, since individual editors become inactive (and re-active) all the time; when do we remove their name? After they have been inactive for a month... year ? Would be feasible if we could come up with some guidelines, and could get a bot designed for the task. Though it would still not address cases such as Talk:Mahatma Gandhi where a user added his name in good faith (and, to be clear, their volunteering to help is commendable), but is arguably not the best person to address question on the subject.
We can deal with these on a case-by-case basis. In the one where the editor is indefblocked, well what are you waiting for? And as for periods of inactivity, be bold. I doubt they would hold a grudge if they go dark for a few months without warning. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have quite a few inactive WikiProjects... Not the case for the project of interest here.
And really, how ridiculously bureaucratic... I actually agree with you on this point. The best, or least primary, place to talk about an article is the article talk-page itself (duh!). ""To get help, please go to some other page..." doesn't make much sense to me either and therefore the template, which guides a newbie to a (potentially inactive) editor's talkpage is counter-productive. My only difference with you is in that I believe that if the newbie editor is to be guided to a different page at all, then WT:INB is a better target (not sure how the length of the page title matters at all on the web, since links are clickable)
Hope that helps explain my reason for nominating the template for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, nix it. I see no pressing reason to keep it right now, although I could be persuaded otherwise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course as I spearheaded the Maintained deletion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per my reasons above and previous discussions using this same "logic." Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you opposed the deletion of {{maintained}} doesn't change that community consensus was to delete that kind of template until/unless future discussion took place at a village pump. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for your opinion; it has been noted and logged. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is even less necessary than {{maintained}}. Adoption implies more long-term care & attention; you wouldn't simply drop out of the life of a child you adopted, right? I believe "adopted" carries stronger connotations than "maintained", is a step up from the maintenance template, and should be deleted on the same grounds. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 02:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the emphasis that this does not indicate article ownership, that is how it will be perceived. Bad idea IMHO. Philg88 ♦talk 07:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better to keep the discussion on the talk page and ping recent contributors for feedback. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I'm in favor of highway adoption. But am persuaded by the above deletes that this will lead to more harm than good. Epeefleche (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2015 (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.
