< March 17	March 19 >

March 18

Template:Peacockterm

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see a "peacock term", you fix it. The template just disfigures the article, is feature creep, and its existence is in conflict with our vaunted principle of "so fix it". -- Y not be working? 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is not always clear how to "fix" it; why make the difficult cases more so? All cleanup templates should have an inline variant. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less than 50 pages using it, so this is a good time to nip it in the bud. Individual instances of peacock terms aren't difficult to fix; the banner version is useful for articles which are full of them, but WP:SOFIXIT is perfectly adequate for individual instances. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is confusing and neadless^{[spelling mistake]} for readers and it does not encourage readers to participate because it is WP-jargon.^{[run-on sentence]} --maclean 01:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's a peacock term, it can easily be fixed per WP:SOFIXIT. It's just as needless as the "spelling mistake" tag; there's no need to fill articles with these tags when they can be fixed so easily. PeterSymonds | talk 12:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there is some sort of "peacock term task force" formed and this template would only be on an article for a day or two, the fixing of such language is best left to folks employing WP:SOFIXIT. y'am'can (wtf?) 19:11, 24 March 2008 (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.

Template:Ruck

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a template like this when a simple piped link would do. All instances of this template should be subst'ed, and then the template should be deleted. – Pee Jay 14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: While [[Playing_rugby_union#Ruck|ruck]] gives the correct ruck, it is quite a mouthfull; might a [[ruck (rugby union)|]] (ruck) redirect be a good option here? — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I think that an article called Ruck (rugby union) would be very useful, as would an article about mauls (at Maul (rugby union) perhaps). We already have a separate article for scrums at Scrum (rugby), so these two would be welcome additions to our collection of articles. – Pee Jay 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The piped link isn't even that long. –Crazytales talk 00:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, templatespace shouldn't become overrun with random shorthand. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Filling this out by hand won't take that much longer than linking it by template. Templates shouldn't be used in this way. PeterSymonds | talk 12:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:irrel

The result of the debate was Delete. Consensus is weak, but present. The basis for deletion ultimately lies in WP:NPOV; This template reveals more about the opinion of the person placing this tag within an article, and less objective information based on policy, as other tags do. Such information should never be placed within an article, but discussed on the talk page. In that light, this template serves no purpose. — Edokter • Talk • 13:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template looks horrible on the articles. I believe it will give the reader undue impression on what is relevant, and what is irrelevant. The way we are linking makes it appear factually irrelevant. The preferred method to fix an article with an irrelevant fact is to boldly remove that fact, or start discussion. This is not like a MERGETO tag, it just has no place, given our way of making and proposing article changes. Its a bit weighty. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where there are strong opinions, boldly removing perceived irrelevancies lead to edit wars (just see the history of State terrorism and the United States), and discussions tend to go nowhere (just see Talk:State terrorism and the United States). A mark such as this occasionally gets the editors' attention and keeps them focused until resolving the issue, and unlike the alternatives offered, doesn't lead to unproductive heated discussion. In an ideal world, this template is not needed, but in a less-than-ideal world, it is too useful a tool to waste. — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you address its undue editorial weight? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I just think it's a small price to pay in order to get to improving the article, rather than edit warring and/or endless talk page arguments, with all the heat that follows. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small price to pay, or a big false compromise? As much as I don't like the protracted edit wars, I don't think this is a step in the right direction -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here, there I don't think is an acceptable alternative for editing. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An acceptable alternative is this template ((Template:Off-topic)) This one does not give any editorial weight. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((Off-topic)) does not pin-point the problem. I've tried both section and inline tags in heated contexts, and in my (admittedly limited) experience, the inline tags are the only ones that actually seem to encourage constructive editing. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it - this belongs on the talk page. Conducting editorial combat in the article text itself is silly when we HAVE a talk page for precisely that - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this tells a reader much. It seems to be mostly a way to tag that a section is being fought over. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really helpful. Delete it.--Doc^g 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a good thing to have instead of edit wars. Lets people know there is a dispute over the irrelevancy of any particular statement and often such tags help cool things down for a bit. Why delete it? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because these disputes belong on talk pages, not the actual article itself. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world perhaps. But this is just one of scores of templates that fulfill this role. You can't really confine this idealistic criticism to this template! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't tell the reader much, and if people are edit warring over particular statements then there are ways of dealing with edit warring besides cluttering the page. Why would they be less likely to edit war over the inclusion of the tag anyway? If something is irrelevant, either rewrite the section to work without the statement or bring it up on the talk page.--Dycedarg ж 06:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they be less likely to edit war over the inclusion of the tag anyway? I don't know why, but they are. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Deacon; in-line tags are an established practice, more useful than edit wars. It might help to reword to relevant?. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. More specific inline tags are much more helpful in resolving disagreements than general tags slapped on entire sections and/or articles. --Irpen 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As nominatior pointed out, "I believe it will give the reader undue impression on what is relevant, and what is irrelevant." For this reason, I think it should be deleted, as we don't need a template that could be used to try dictating what is relevant and what is not. Steve Crossin (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steve Crossin. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too problematic and vague. If something's irrelevant, well, we're a wiki, you know what to do. :p krimpet ✽ 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way too vague to be useful, really. Crufty and likely to appear more and more as a band-aid in contentious articles. Ugly - Alison ^❤ 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per alison et al - less tag.s and more communication please! Privatemusings (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone slapped one of these tags on an article I'd recently worked on, I'd be rather miffed. It seems a value judgement. "citation needed" on the other hand is a note that there is a place for improvement in the article... I don't think this is a good idea at all. delete ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: it is a little disappointing that this template is being IRCed as this shifts the selection of the participants making it less representative of the community overall. But this aside, true that irrelevant info is best deleted. And it gets deleted. What may happen then is some editors would disagree with the deletion and restore it. Recycle, etc. The disputed sentence being marked as such would facilitate the discussion instead of the revert war. I've seen it working and it helped a lot. Also, the template was requested by another editor which means the editor obviously saw it useful. I would add that the editor who requested it and myself (who created it) are long-time content opponents and this bipartisan support, if anything, shows its usefulness. --Irpen 05:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC'ed? It was mailing listed also... twice actually. But don't worry, when I broadcasted it to these two places, I only posted the link, and nothing else. Same with the mailing (wikien-l) list. Just to let ya know. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most if not all copyedit templates should have an inline variant.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting. I wish the next admin the best of luck. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotrus, while I agree that a talk page discussion is infinitely better than simply tagging I can see situation there the tag is irreplaceable. As a hypothetical example if in George W Bush article somebody included a sentence "in the wars started during Bush's presidency: in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq died X civilians [some ref]". The Serbia is clearly irrelevant to the Bush article. It cannot be excluded either as it would change the number of civilian losses. The easiest temporal fix would be to stick ((irrel)) to Serbia and then look for better sources. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused? What does "irrelevant" have to do with looking for better sources. How does sourcing change the relevancy? Can you clarify this, I fear the argument here does not stand. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in my eyes, does a similar job to ((fact)), ((disputed)), etc. and is similarly useful. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you don't see the undue editorial weight? NonvocalScream (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I suppose, even though I hate all those tags. I think that it's misnamed, though. The usual editorial comment for revision is "relevance?" I understand that the question is the same, although it will seem less polite to say "irrelevant?" than "relevance?" If the editorial comment is "relevance?" it reminds an author to explain the relevance of the statement. This said, all of these tags should be used among friends or during the composition process. When any of them is dropped by another editor after the fact, it is hostile and, as David Gerard says, a poor circumvention of the talk page. Whenever any of these things appears on something I've done, I will remove them and ask for comment on the talk page, but this one isn't worse than the others. Kill all of them (yes) or not this one. Geogre (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me be clear: if people want to get rid of "fact" and "cn" and the others, including this, I'm all for it. I think all of them get "undue weight." I think all of them are poor substitutes for using the talk page. I think all of them are graffiti. Use the talk, Luke; use the talk. Geogre (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Need something to indicate if some line is making an article become a coat rack. Martintg (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Find it interesting that we suddenly have a slew of votes almost at once. I really think we should scrap this and start over. It's obvious that it's compromised on both sides. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised in what way? More likely this "sudden slew of votes" merely a random statistical anomaly. Martintg (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Could we do better than that, while I agree that it appears to be slewed both sides, it only appears so. I can tell you where I published this discussion. I can't tell you if another editor canvassed. I can only assume. And in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, on either side, I would be amiss to assume that there was fowl. Close this a no consensus, and I'll renominate it after some time has passed... if I still have concerns. But I ask us not to assume compromise in the absence of evidence. I certainly don't feel... done wrong. Respectfully NonvocalScream (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty, what you're noting with the sudden influx of voting is something I have complained about for years. I have argued that we need to address it at a deep level. However, the people who use the lensing media love it and resist all efforts at change. Furthermore, if one ever goes to AfD, one will see dozens of "this debate has been listed in the list of go-vote-keep-for-all-schools/manga/anime/toys" banners. Vote busing is nasty, but, since we have embraced it as "integral to Wikipedia" (IRC) and "harmless" (the list of deletion debates) and "acceptable" (the mailing lists), then we have to embrace the instant tempests. This debate has triggered one of the crowds of unfrozen warriors, a particularly rampant one. See above for the people pleading that this is all good fun and totally acceptable. Geogre (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just remove the statement in question, then if reverted, discuss - WP:BRD. If people edit war over removing content, they would probably edit war over a tag that labeled the same content as "irrelevant." Mr.Z-man 15:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - modified 'friendly' version Having alternate tools available for editors to use to identify their concerns as well as ways limit areas of edit warring seems a good thing. It is also useful for an editor who doesn't necessarily know the subject well, but ID's a potential concern that a more knowledgable should look into. If the large concern is that the relevent? is 'unfriendly', I would support changing to off topic? or other more friendly language.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can support that. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the ((fact)) tag is useful because we have a verifiability policy. There is no relevance policy and warring over an inflammatory inline tag like this in article space is not needed. --Pixelface (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that WP:TOPIC is merely a guideline, not a policy, I think WP:NOR (which is policy) implies a relevance requirement: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." If the information presented is off-topic, that's going to be tricky. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said above: if a statement is irrelevant, delete it or discuss it. BTW, this templates is currently not used at all, why there is no need to keep it. --Kildor (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it is not used at all is that it was deleted, and all instances of it removed (on reflection, shouldn't they have been subst:'ed instead? removing them just loses info). The discussion has since been relisted, but the removal has not been rolled back. — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. This is a bit lengthy and late, I know. Sorry. As much as I hate to keep up this whole divide between "metapedian busy-bodies" and "article writers," I do notice that of the people known as some our highly celebrated writers, many commenting here favor the (selective) use of the template. As has been suggested, the text should probably be changed to read [relevant?] if this is kept. We already tag articles with ((importance)) and sections with ((importance-sect)) or ((trivia)); such tags inform readers that debate is ongoing on an article's talk page, or remind them that an article may or may not be perfect; our willingness to notify readers of potential imperfections is usually toted, I believe, as a great hallmark of Wikipedia. In that area, inline templates can do a superior job -- would anyone seriously suggest we should scrap ((fact)) and go back to universally using ((refimprove)) up in the lead every time there's a sourcing issue? Why not just remove unsourced material and discuss on talk, if reverted? It's easy enough to say the same issues don't apply, and I'll agree it's not a perfect fit, but there's enough similarity to give me pause. If section templates are useful because they're more specific than article templates, then inline templates are surely likewise useful because they're more specific than section templates. The bigger question here seems to be when and how we should use inline templates, and there I'm inclined to say we should let the experiment continue. Give editors tools, see how they use them, and come back to the discussion later. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is far too much like scribbling in the margins. It only encourages people to tag cruft instead of removing it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are multiple ways of addressing the problem (without fixing it): use talk page, hidden comments, etc. The only benefit this has is making editorial dispute public for general readers. I think the cost of disrupting the article-space for a minor non-policy issue outweighs the benefits. --maclean 01:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I guess that I do not see any harm in reminding Wikipedia readers that WP is a work in progress and not the gospel truth. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us try and keep article space professional and spiffy. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's so irrelevant, it can either be removed or taken up on the talk page. We shouldn't fill articles with these inline tags. PeterSymonds | talk 12:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]