Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 5

message: Personally, I feel that we should mark articles as containing adult content. Otherwise, some ackward situations could arise at home, school, public places, etc.
-Sparky 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to propose a policy change then. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors -- Sneltrekker 18:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just point out again that having a label saying something contains adult content is in no way the same thing as censoring that content.  I really don't get why 6 of the 12 votes on this template chose to cite NOT, which really has very little to do with the issue.  I understand how such a template might not be useful, or desirable, etc., but calling it censorship seems like a knee-jerk reaction.  Or do you consider movie ratings and the like to also be a form of censorship?    Dragons flight 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This has already been discussed at length before (and is, in fact, a perennial proposal). See Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, which has links to some of the other places where this has been discussed before. --cesarb 19:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of adult content template? 

message: WP:TFD is being overrun with nominations related to these.  Very few last beyond a couple hours without either being speedy kept or speedy deleted.  I would like to hear opinions about whether we should stop accepting Userbox nominations on this page.  Like stub templates, these could all be moved to the WikiProject, so that that they can be policed by the members. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the notion of "policing" or "members" and I think we should keep them here as a result; it's a passing fad. However, a halfway house would to be quickly move such debates, when they grow, to transcluded subpages and leave just a link here. Yes, that gives transclusions in transclusions, but there will be few of them, they only stay active for about 7 days and the whole thing will go away soon anyway. -Splashtalk 23:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly, I don't see that the number of userbox nominations is really threatening the TfD process, and suspect that the increased number of recent noms will settle down in the coming weeks, anyway. But I also don't see much of a problem in handling them in the same manner as stubs, and there is logic in doing so. – Seancdaug 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have real difficulty with passing this off on the WikiProject, as many of them have been voting en masse to keep most of these templates. While userspace-intended templates probably ARE different from regular templates, I agree with Splash for the most part. This will eventually die down again; a new procedure is not needed, though new policy may be. -- nae'blis (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should disallow userbox nominations here or anywhere else. Free speech on user pages is a no brainer and the costs of transclusion are negligible compared to the benefit these users give the project. "The seed of revolution is repression." ~Woodrow Wilson  *Peace Inside 00:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep them here. No userbox is sacrosanct. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely should not be spun off into their own project, or the decisions will never represent the consensus of the broader community.  Just look at what's happened with stubs.  I don't see a problem with a moratorium on nominating them at all, though; it's clear that no userbox is going to be consensually deleted in the foreseeable future, between the counter-Martin revolutionaries, the deluded newbies, and the hordes of socks. —Cryptic (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  Wikipedia: Stub types for deletion has developed a good process.  They work to rationalize every new stub template against the mass of others, and remove, combine or eliminate those that don't fit into the larger picture.  Having nominations for Userboxes put onto this page misses out on that big picture. Stub templates, when they first became vogue, spread virally around the wiki, much like these userboxes have.  Today, the stubs are managed quite well.  Making WP:TFD the battleground for stub templates was the wrong leng-term decision, and that is true for Userboxes. -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree wtih Dalbury and Cryptic that it is better to keep them here. Johntex\talk 04:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with D, C, J – keep consolidated.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Move it to the WP. Jimbo wants nothing to do with them; they're not encyclopedic, and the userbox thing is a hobby, and not seriously used on any article-namespace pages; it doesn't make any sense to keep this kind of stuff here. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 06:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The debate about them has certainly led to far more divisiveness than any userbox has yet caused. FWIW, I think that they should be kept here unless and entirely separate process-page setup is created for them, which to me seems a bit of overkill. Oh, and I might like to preserve Netoholic's comments above - it is very rare for someone not heavily involved in WP:WSS to say anything nice about SFD! :) Grutness...wha? 00:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disallowing userbox nominations on this page 

message: Who changed the closing procedures and the header on the page so that it's horrifyingly long and a mirror of the obnoxious AfD process? Which is to say, who is going to yell at me when I put it back to the good method that's served us just fine? Phil Sandifer 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do keep the subpage-per-day structure, though. That doesn't add to the closure process. (I say this just because hefting the whole thing back to a non-subpaged layout seems pointless now we are here.) -Splashtalk 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still instruction creep on a page that was working just fine. Phil Sandifer 08:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I argued against it (and suggested people close debates rather than complain about how many unclosed debates are making the page long), but the work involved in undoing it is probably not worthwhile. -Splashtalk 08:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to do the work - I find undoing instruction creep to be almost inherently worthwhile. Particularly instruction creep that was instituted despite many editors saying "Umm, no, please don't creep this up." Phil Sandifer 08:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do undo it, please drop a note on User talk:Crypticbot so that it doesn't try to update the subpages at midnight. —Cryptic (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The new structure is actually also better to the servers as there are now only a limited number of revisions per day per page. Also the merging of conflicting edits (which still must be done by the servers if sections do not conflict) is reduced. And last but not least the work to archive the debates is trivial as the article page for that day is already its archive. At least we could continue using the new structure made by Radiant (per consensus) until we have some more experience with it. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blech

message: The reason I ended up creating Wikipedia:Supermajority is because I asked what the deletion threshold for a template should be after seeing one deleted with less than 66% opposition.  However, I asked in perhaps the worst place to ask that question, and didn't get any actual answers to the question.
Therefore, I am repeating my original proposal here and on Wikipedia talk:Supermajority:
:A template should be deleted if it is opposed by at least:
:*67% of voters when two or more editors are using the template;
:*60% if just one editor is using it; and 
:*50% if it isn't being used by anyone.
Comments? Please post them on Wikipedia talk:Supermajority Thanks. --James S. 13:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We do not close debates based simply on numbers, as has been explained in very considerably detail at Wikipedia talk:Consensus. That's a massive policy shift you are proposing, and I'm afraid it's quite out of the question to do it here. -Splashtalk 02:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template deletion threshold

message: They don't appear to be correct as they ask the closing user to move the discussion to the log, where they already seem to be.  I haven't been active here so am not sure if I'm misunderstanding, which is why I'm not simply changing it myself. Tedernst | talk 23:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed →AzaToth 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  closing instructions 

message: :preserved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)
Is it possible to have templates automatically "update" on every page they are utilized on once they have been changed? (sort of like how when a category is added/removed from a pages info the hyperlink to the page is added/removed on the Category page). I don't really know much about how Wikipedia works, so my apologies if this is a stupid question. --66.229.183.101 08:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates do update on the pages they are used on, so the behaviour you describe already exists. --TheParanoidOne 10:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes they do update and there is no way to say no to that besides making an own template for every new version of a template (For example version 1 of template:book reference could be made at template:book reference/1 and protected forever). Templates even break the promise of Wikipedia that you can always go back to an old revision of an article. Example: on article Bill Clinton, User:NetBot changed on this revision the parameters of the president box on the right side (diff). All revisions after that edit of that article now show a good president box on the right side. But all revision prior to that NetBot edit show a broken box (example: revision before that edit). See also this message on wikitech-l and my talk with Rick Block on this (User talk:Rick Block#Some toughts about templates). --Adrian Buehlmann 10:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do images. Superm401 | Talk 11:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't believe you. Can you provide any detailed examples and steps you have taken (with references to wiki pages). BTW: Please create a login for yourself. It does not hurt :-). --Adrian Buehlmann 18:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's only the cached version.  Changing a template clears the cache of all pages linking to it.  Sam Korn 20:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There are some things in templates that aren't updated, like adding a category (if the template adds a page to a category, changing the category in the template does not automatically recategorize all referencing articles).  So a more complete answer is formatting information is updated when a template is changed, but information contained in internal database records (categories, what links here, etc.) is not updated until the page is next changed. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: This userbox template was speedied, but it may be worthy of deletion review.  If there is another user who feels that it ought to be restored, I will list it for undeletion - otherwise I'll just have to make my own.  --Dschor 17:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll say this once, and I'll say it again and again: why in the hell are we still dealing with userboxes at TfD when there's a Wikiproject dealing with it? Let them handle their own cruft. TfD is for Templates that Matter, not Usercruft. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 19:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikiproject effectively serves to promote userboxen, and it is unlikely that they would consider the conclusion that they are, in sum or in part, harmful to the project. TfD is the way templates are deleted, which includes userboxen. --Improv 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User does not trust Jimbo