Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 6

< July 5	July 7 >

July 6, 2006

Template:Sockpuppet

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep life's tough. -- Drini 19:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered this tag at the top of many user pages. I don't think it's fair that users should know what other names they edit under. It's like AOL telling everyone what other screen names you have and it violate the principles of assumin good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.9 (talk • contribs) .

Speedy keep - Sockpuppets are only investigated when there are questions of abuse of process like deletion votes, etc. There are plenty of good reasons to keep this tag. Megapixie 04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Megapixie. See previous TfD discussion of this template. It was absolutely 100% kept. -- ADNghiem501 05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to vote delete. The tag itself gets abused. Axiomm 05:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. target the abuse, not the useful template. -Will Beback 05:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we just tag proven usernames? Often users get tagged because one or two users assume a link. It often leads to edit wars between user and the one posting the tag. Axiomm 05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I have twice been accused of being a "sockpuppet" simply because I made a couple of edits and had forgotton to log-in. On both occasions the accusation came within minutes from somebody with a grudge and it was obviously being used as a way to "get at me". I think the term "sockpuppet" is silly anyway and gives the impression that Wikepedia is nerdy rather than a place for serious, scholarly contributions. Mallimak 08:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would take that up with Mais Oi, the edits certainly weren't abusive per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I would just remove the templates since there has been no policy violation. Megapixie 08:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widely used maintenance template, deletion is not a realistic option ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Sarge Baldy 08:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. On IP's they are not so helpful, but they are very useful for usernames. Abuse itself is no reason for deletion -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, necessary for tracking IPs and related users. Kff 11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, restrict the use of the template to the discussion page and do not post it on the user page itself! Kff 11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Axiomm and Mallimak. Tagging should be limited to proven "sockpuppets". I also want to point out that most keep votes will come from users who are admins. Users shouldn't have to deal with unwanted tags on their userpages just because one or two users suspects them. FeedThePigeons 12:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, although it'd be great if all accusations could be verified with Checkuser that's just not practical and in the meantime we need a way to warn others of sockpuppeteers' efforts to disrupt articles. We've been fighting off a sockpuppeteer who pretends to be real users as well as with offensive user names, the tag helps us keep track of them all (currently standing at 65, a large proportion of which are banned). (p.s. not an admin, just a mere mortal)--PaulWicks 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but encourage people not to WP:BITE genuine newcomers with such a tag. Note that a newcomer who confidently and repeatedly reverts to the version of someone known to have used sockpuppets in the past, and who follows that person to other pages, and uses similar language is not what I mean by a genuine newcomer. Useful template. Should not be abused. AnnH ♫ 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. If this is kept, someone needs to add a warning that this is not to be used lightly. - Kookykman|(t)e 15:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, this is only intended to be used for malicious sockpuppets, not just any alt. accounts, and it's impossible to do without in vandalwhacking. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, serves a useful purpose, if it gets misused (yes occasionally it does) that's not the templates fault, rather the editors who mis-use it, who should be dealt with as appropriate. Petros471 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, very important. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mallimak pointed out that we don't need silly teminology. If the template is kept it would be better to just state A might belong to B. I think we also can stop using "speedy" since it's clear a consensus won't be reached for the next few days. FeedThePigeons 19:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was blocked because I was accused of this nonsense. --Vitriouxc 19:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This template is absolutely essential. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as well as associated categories. --Dmitry 19:41, 7 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:njt-sta

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 page.

~~The result of the debate was Out of process Delete by SPUI (already subst'd and replaced) --William Allen Simpson 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted on 1 September 2006 Pagra shtak 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this given the pipe trick. --SPUI (T - C) 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep –There's no way that typing Madison (NJT station)| is faster or easier than njt-sta|Madison. Regardless, it makes things not only easier to read, but also allows for shorthand (as shown in the example). Port Jervis (Metro-North station)| vs. njt-sta|type=mnrr|Port Jervis? I just think it's way more elegant. takes care of the whole "hide the program mechanism from the user" concept very nicely. This also gurauntees consistency - you don't have to think twice about whether the word "station" should be capitalized or not. Personally I found it very easy to use this template on the List of NJT stations and it was a great timesaver for wikifying station articles. lensovet 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Station should never be capitalized according to naming conventions. --SPUI (T - C) 21:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how many people know of naming conventions? Apparently not the folks that put together List_of_Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_stations, for example. regardless, I just think that it makes standardization and naming conventions (i.e how do we call njt stations? metro-north stations? etc.) much much easier. lensovet 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just means we use a different standard - one that's not obvious - this njt-sta crap. --SPUI (T - C) 21:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? Also, there is absolutely no way that typing River LINE is faster than typing type=river. The whole point of a template is to save time and make the article easier to read and spend more time on content and less on repetitive tasks. Hey, why do we need {{NJT}}? I mean, that template doesn't even do anything other than insert a static link. Maybe that should go too, you can use the "typing trick" instead.

Also, how does this template "violate" any of the reasons for having a template in the first place? lensovet 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need {{NJT}} - feel free to nominate it for deletion. I was a noob when I made it. --SPUI (T - C) 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other points, i.e. River LINE shorthand, reasons for having a template/template usage? I really couldn't care less about the other template, it doesn't bother me at all, I just don't want to have double standards put on. lensovet 02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I completely disagree. Piping is fine, but the njt-sta template allows this to happen far more cleanly and efficiently. It also can be used in another template and allows for far easier maintenance. Templates qualify as open-source software--and as such it must be readily maintainable, and to be maintainable it must be readable. I saw the changes you made to the NJT rail line template, which once used the njt-sta template. I can't make head nor tail of it anymore! This violates every convention of code readability that I ever heard of--and I've had professional-level instruction in computer coding, and am experienced in C/C++ and Java. --Temlakos 22:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would really like to use this template to use with subst:, but it results in a really ugly #switch statement. Ideally the #switch would get substituted away and just a clean name would be left behind without any template usage. Without that, I'm not sure of any benefit. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about using the same convention here as in article names, so it can be substed? So this template would just be [[{{{1}}} ({{{type}}} station)|{{{1}}}]]. Others could be weeded out beforehand with a temporary addition of [[{{{type}}}test]] to the template and a what links here on for instance mnrrtest. I'm willing to do much of the grunt work for this if others agree. --SPUI (T - C) 07:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've done this and substed. --SPUI (T - C) 11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even though no "others" agreed....sigh. The whole point is that you can use shorthand in the template, the template has no purpose if we're typing out the "type" of station fully by hand. lensovet 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Too bad - type links normally then. --SPUI (T - C) 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Man seriously what the hell. The whole point of a template is so that you save time and don't type links, tables, etc. "normally". Maybe we should do away with {{see also}} as well? lensovet 02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any particular reason why you want to use it for substing, rather than just using it as is? lensovet 02:48, 9 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:ISBN needed

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. According to the deletion log, an identical template was discussed then deleted a year ago. It seems to have risen again.--Shantavira 06:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this could be potentially useful for the Novels Project. Sophy's Duckling 22:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - use a category instead. ---ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't use a category. If people think it is important they can look it up themselves and add it. Chicheley 03:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-referential categories should be kept to a minimum. Sumahoy 12:29, 8 July 2006 (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 page.