< February 16	February 18 >

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Current Scottish TOCs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this Template is a pointless waste of space as all the train oporators are listed in Template:Current UK TOCs, needless and unnesacary duplication. in violation of:

1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic); as it adds no new info that is not contained in Template:Current UK TOCs

2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template; again Template:Current UK TOCs is better. Oxyman (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Adambro (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep but rename. It appears to have use in Scotland, but it is mis-named. It is not Scottish TOCs, it is "Current TOCs in Scotland". Looking at the history it was renamed in January of this year from "Current Rail Operators in Scotland".Pyrotec (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, and merge, per nom. I think this is the right thing to do here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Delete In the UK we have the clear system of past, present and future TOCs in three perfectly good inter-linked templates. Why should Scotland have its own? Shall we go and create ones for England, Wales and N Ireland as well? No. it is also less work for updating TOCs with less templates. None of the TOCs in the template in question are exclusive to Scotland. They all run to England (ScotRail operates the Euston sleeper), and one runs to Wales. yet another reason to remove this waste of space template! Btline (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment In most cases this template is hidden (eg Virgin, NXEC), meaning that hardly anyone would use it! Btline (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Merge content into Template:Current UK TOCs --Jorvik (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Scotland’s railways are in no way separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, and so this template is a needless duplication. David Arthur (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: needless forking. Do we really need a separate navbox for Scotland? It's not as if the UK one is too big. Also, each of the operators in Scotland (except the Glasgow Subway) has operations into England, so it's not as if the two countries have entirely separate systems either. --RFBailey (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• When is this debate being closed? Come on- Speedy delete!!!!! (PS- have moved template so if it is kept, it will be inline with others.)Btline (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This doesn't pass any of the criteria for speedy deletion, so it needs to wait the requisite 5-7 days before the discussion can be closed. --RFBailey (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Does it not? I thought a template which merely duplicates non specific content for no reason could be? Oh well, no matter. Btline (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 result of the debate was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G1: patent nonsense. —Bkell (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:D'oh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused, conveys no information. —Bkell (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You could probably speedy this as patent nonsense. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:26, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, okay. —Bkell (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 result of the debate was Speedy keep, per the arguments from the recent TfD which closed as snowball keep. Happy‑melon 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Euro coins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused, and full of a bunch of non-free images that ImageBacklogBot is removing ([1]) since they shouldn't be in the Template namespace by the ninth non-free content criterion. —Bkell (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read this before you do anything. The copyright templates on euro coins of Commons and the templates placed on the euro coins on wikipedia contradict eachother. - ${\displaystyle \mathrm {S} }$ ${\displaystyle \mathrm {Solberg} }$ ${\displaystyle \mathrm {J} }$ 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, I should have linked to the earlier deletion discussion. I'm sorry, that was my mistake. The main difference between the two nominations seems to be that in December 2007 this template was being used somewhere; currently it is not. —Bkell (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved the contents of the template back into the euro coins article because a bot was removing some of the images. So this template is not used anywhere now. As far as I recall it was created so any not to 'frighten newbies' if they edited the euro coins article, a poor enough reason for creating it. It can be deleted now. Snappy56 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have severely modified the template code so that it will display the fair-use images only when transcluded on article pages. I could have achieved the same effect with <includeonly> tags, but this is foolproof: when transcluded onto article pages, the fair-use images are displayed. When transcluded in any other namespace, you get Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. With this cause for concern removed, the arguments from the previous TfD stand. This image should be restored to whichever articles it was previously transcluded in. Speedy keep. Happy‑melon 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Kubigula CSD G6. Non-admin close. JPG-GR (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Nickel Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template served as a footer box for a set of articles around a non-notable film, all of which have been deleted or will be deleted. As such, this template has no use. — hateless 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy delete housekeeping as a remnant from an AfD, and tagged as such. JPG-GR (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Ultima-Mini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This video game template only includes a link to the Ultima video game series page. Video Game project's infobox already includes a field for series articles. Also the template has a fair use image which doesn't contribute anything to the articles it appears on. — Mika1h (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Mika1h (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Serves no useful purpose in current form. JPG-GR (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep It ties all the Ultima game articles together under a common designation without causing issues for the CVG info box templates. The image used in the template is the Ultima logo as it has appeared on virtually every related game since the 1970s. Miqademus (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete It is only used in a user page, and its functionality is redundant since NavBox and InfoBox can essentially do what it is doing. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 result of the debate was to keep. WP:AGF is one of the most basic policies of Wikipedia. We therefore must assume that the users recapping debates are doing so honestly unless demonstrated otherwise. To delete this template because of the potential for abuse when the general consensus seems to be that when properly implemented this can be quite helpful would be a sweeping and pre-emptive assumption of bad faith. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have politely been asked to amend my closing statement to address the lists of users, which was a particularly problematic issue with this template. Although there really seems to be no consensus either way on the issue, I would think that this should stay out - a recap is one thing, a numbered petition with (possibly well-known) names lining up for each side seems a bit much. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

note: all issues brought up in this discussion, if the template is kept, will be addressed and adjusted/noted/corrected in the template's future improvements - I personally promise that VigilancePrime (talk) :-) 18:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This recently created template is apparently to be used to summarize deletion discussions in the manner of a tallied vote. As that would be an extremely unwikipedian thing to do, this template has no use supported by consensus, so it should be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: To address the concern that this template perpetuates the perception that XfDs are vote tallies, the user list that was once a part of this template has been removed. It is now just a summary of arguments presented in the discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:25, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• Joke categories are also "extremely unwikipedian" when Rouge Admins goes this template can go. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• (ec) Keep: Some discussions become extremely long and involved, and having some form of summary is useful for capturing the flavour of the discussion. The list of reasons at the bottom mean that this is not simply a voting list, but a summary of arguments advanced for and against, and the strength of opinion supporting them. Describing this as "extremely unwikipedian" does not make it so. If it were simply a list, there would be an argument that could be made about not simply voting, but this is not the case, and so no such argument is really justified. Further, with regard to its present use in the UCfD regarding Rouge Admins, the template allows the community division in opinion - mostly admins on one side, mostly editors on the other - to be seen clearly. Recognising the divisive nature of that discussion actually aids the closing admin in recognising the relevance of policy to the case in question. On the broader question, the template might require refinement, but that is hardly a reason for deleting it. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Let's not get into side issues. I also support the deletion of the user category, but the issue here is whether use of this template is compatible with Wikipedia. The argument against is evident: you look at the results of that template and you see it as a divisive discussion, whereas we're out to recognise where consensus has been reached. Emphasizing our divisions, as this template does and is designed to do, damages the consensus-forming process. --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I am aware that you support deletion of the category, and the division to which I have referred is in the discussion. The fact that the template makes the presence of the division clear is not a weakness of the template; it is a strength. The notion that you can have a consensus position and closing in a case where admins and editors take opposing views is problematic, and is neither the fault of the template or the consensus policy. It is the fault of the admins advocating the retention of a category which the community opposes. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • On the substantive issue, I have seen several discussions closed by admins who have ignored the consensus evident in the discussion, and instead closed a discussion citing their own opinion. That is divisive, and should be prevented, and doing so in the face of this template will be harder. The template might make admins who want to be able to do what they want uncomfortable; it may also make them more inclined to join a discussion and argue for a consensus position, rather than simply trying to impose one. Both of these would be positive developments in the deletion section of WP. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Appears to be a half-baked attempt at automatic vote counting which also makes the naive assumption that there are only two possible outcomes. Delete. — CharlotteWebb 15:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's nothing automated about it; the person posting it would need to read through the discussion and manually add people to one list or another. If the limit of two possible outcomes is a problem perhaps the template could be changed to include other possible outcomes -- this doesn't seem like a reason to outright delete it. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:58, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
    • Even then, you would still be making the less naive (yet still unwarranted) assumptions that (a) there are a finite number of possible outcomes, and (b) that the plurality of users supporting each outcome is of any major importance. — CharlotteWebb 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The user list is gone. And this is meant to be a general rundown of the discussion, which in long debates predominately consists of a strong delete/keep division. The closing admin will of course read through the entire discussion and consider other suggested outcomes if any are present. The template also has a space for misc comments in which other possibilities could be mentioned. And finally, if the outcome limitation becomes an issue, other possible outcomes can be added to the template. This isn't a reason to delete it. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:48, 19 Feb 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The template is a plausible consequence of the fact that XfD etc are in fact treated like votes and evaluated according to headcount. It's a symptom, not the problem. I'd rather have the symptoms of the underlying illness show rather than fighting the symptom so that the underlying ill can continued to be ignored. User:Dorftrottel 16:09, February 17, 2008
  • Maybe so, but would using this template do anything other than encourage the problem to grow? That is a rather defeatist attitude. — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • My reasoning is that the template and, by extension, my rationale to keep may draw some direly needed attention to the real problem. But ok, my rationale is a tad pointy and I wouldn't cry if the template is deleted - I just wished it would be deleted because XfD is de facto not a vote, rather than just de jure. User:Dorftrottel 17:47, February 17, 2008
• Keep. Per above user's comments. The Helpful One ^(Review) 16:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as author. I disagree with some of the arguments above citing that a larger problem exists and that it's okay to perpetuate it in the hope that it garners more attention. The purpose of this template isn't to substitute the discussion but to provide a point of reference. Long deletion discussions often take a long time to close because of how daunting they seem to admins. This template provides them with a rundown and a place to start. The idea sprung out of such a scenario, where User:VigilancePrime posted such a recap manually, after waiting a long time for a closing to occur -- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of Kid Nation participants. Note the closing admin's comment on the idea. If used responsibly and it doesn't become something admins rely on to close discussions, I think it can continue to be very helpful. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:24, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Dorftroffel makes a good point that the CAT:ROUGE CfD will most likely be decided a vote count of sorts. However, this template could be seen as encouraging the closing admin to simply count votes instead of finding the reasoned, coherent arguments that should decide whether the category stays or not (and ignore the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOHARM 'arguments'), and creates an us and them mentality, which is detrimental to creating community consensus. EJF (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think we are in basic agreement on the issue. However, my contention is that in many deletion and other ostensible "discussions" this is the case already and I don't have an answer how this could be turned around. And I also know that no one else has that answer. But first and foremost I know that those who say that there is no such problem are the problem. User:Dorftrottel 18:26, February 17, 2008
• Strong Delete or at least obsolete it as historical and never to be used. Anything that reinforces the misperception that deletion discussions are about voting is to be avoided at all costs. I understand and even agree that long discussions are daunting to close. This template doesn't help in that situation. Those are usually the discussions when the nose-count is least relevant. The template also relies on lots of highly involved wikicode that can not (and never will be able to) account for the nuances of actually reading and weighing the contents of the messages. It ignores ambiguous or conditional opinions and provides no sense of the evolution of the discussion (or of the connection to changes in the article being discussed). I'm sure it was created with the best of intentions but this is a really bad direction for the project to go. Rossami (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

break 1[edit]

• KEEP and Comment - I would like to point out that, as the template's conceptionist (is that a word?), I believe that it is very valuable when and if used properly. Recently, it was used in non-template form and appreciated by the closing admin, who thought it was "a neat idea", which was the impetus toward looking into making it a template. It is designed to summarize in a purely neutral way. As with anything, it can be used improperly, but there is nothing inherently improper with the template (think, "guns don't kill people, people will people with guns...among other things"). Eq has been phenomenally instrumental in making it usable and has poured a ton of time and effort into it to make it far better and will it with far more utility than I would have ever anticipated.

THAT SAID, I do think that it was moved from userspace somewhat prematurely, but for the noblist of reasons. I would support - and believe the best solution to be - moving it back to the original page, User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Recap for the time being. For that matter, leave it there permanently if we like. This template has been used twice. The first time was an exceptionally concise, superbly neutral summary (not analysis) of the arguments. The down side is that it was edited/refactored afterward to a non-neutral summary. That could present a problem. The second use was much more involved and appeared to be a neutral summary only, but as I am not familiar with the full discussion, I cannot state decisively whether it was used "correctly" or not, though I suspect that it was.

Whether the "result" of this discussion is to Keep/Maintain it in the main Template area or not, at least allow Eq and I to preserve the work by userfying it if the discussion determines that it should not / can not remain in the main Template space.

Thank you all for your time and attention. We appreciate any help (as we have incorporated the recommendations given by one admin thus far - the one who originally noted it was a neat idea - and would certainly like to add additional utility and features if the community can give us some great ideas. Have a great day, everyone, and thanks again! VigilancePrime (talk) :-) 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep following this modification. Remove the vote tally portion of the template. A summary of arguments is fine and can be useful; however, listing users under "keep" and "delete" columns is counterproductive, partly because it gives the impression that deletion discussions are just votes and partly because it fails to consider other options (for instance, merging). If the tally is not removed, then delete the template as well-intentioned and useful in theory but too problematic in practice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep but alter per Black Falcon above. A summary of arguments on each side can be very helpful but in cases where voting is a problem and a pattern has emerged that isn't in line with the intention of a deletion debate it should be dealt with individually and not through the design of a template for general use in deletion debates. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'd like to thank User:VigilancePrime for his welcome concession that issues raised here must be addressed seriously, and on that note I agree with User:Black Falcon and User:EconomicsGuy that removal of the tally would make this template acceptable. --Tony 19:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Consider it done. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:15, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's comments and collaborative nature. I agree that listing users can seem vote-ish, but I believe that this is an important aspect in some cases. The template does not reuire its use, and perhaps a note that it usually is not necessary is possible, but when we talk about consensus, the number of users is an important aspect. Because of Ignore All Rules, it is possible for a tiny group (think two, three users) to have somewhat better policy arguments, but a significantly larger group (think 20-30 users) to have enough of a valid point that IAR together with consensus guide us to give some leeway on an issue. Further, I think that it may be useful when there is the potential for (or allegations of) coordinated attacks. Sometimes, a small group band together and work to steamroll articles, and by listing all users together, patterns like this are less easily obfuscated. I've been in a couple like that where, until I actually went through and made two columns (figuratively), I hadn't even realized that it was the "same crusaders" on one side and consensus on the other. I don't necessarily know what the most important solution is, but there has to be one that addresses both sides of these concerns. ALSO, I would like thoughts on adding a "Merge" column or an "Other" column (where each user listed would be followed with Merge or Userfy or whatever they had stated). Thanks to all. VigilancePrime (talk) :-) 19:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--- note: a little tongue-in-cheek observation... if one scrolls through even this discussion quickly, all the boldface "Keep"s and "Delete"s look a lot like voting... There's no easy solution, and I recognize that. :-D VigilancePrime (talk) :-) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's true, and I don't really agree that the users should be removed, but if people tend to see it as a vote listing, which seems apparent here, then I'm okay leaving it out. Really though, this template puts forth everything that an admin should be considering during a closing: what the arguments are on each side and how many people are on each side. As VigilancePrime points out, although we've taken great pains to make sure people don't see XfDs as a "straight vote", let's not lose sight of what consensus really is. The number of people on each side is definitely a factor. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:39, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)

If there is consensus to remove the voting tally, then I consider this template, for the time being, fairly innocuous. Encouraging editors to summaries pros and cons isn't bad. However it would be better to recognise that there are often more than just two opinions in any given discussion, so this template may not often be much use. --Tony 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another note: what's the difference between using a template for formatting ease if it only includes a argument summary when anyone can do that in a single paragraph or two paragraphs with bullet points? Consensus makes a huge difference unless trumped totally by policy such as no personal attacks or living person contentious information. A user count is significant and many _fD's are closed noting the numbers, either specifically (e.g. "12 to keep and 3 to delete") or generally (e.g. "roughly 3/4 of users supported delete"). User counts are very important and admins do and must take this into consideration. That's the important, though, that it's still "only" consideration. VigilancePrime (talk) :-) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In light of the fact that – for better or worse – editors tend to post bolded "keep" or "delete" comments, administrators can still get an idea of the numerical distribution of opinions without a formal tabulation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes except that inevitably some users may - intentionally or unintentionally - make the same bold "vote" twice. I've seen this happen all the time, mostly accidentally (i believe), and a centralized repository would help to alleviate the potential errors that such formatting irregularities may present. NOTE: This is not meant to be the only part of a discussion for a closer to read. A starting point for an admin and a Cliff Notes for other users/contributors.

Also, I'm working on the template now and making sure to remove any reference to voting or instance of the word "vote" in either the template or instructions. VigilancePrime (talk) :-) 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general, I think that shouldn't matter. Closers should read through the discussion and know what arguments were made; a count of 'votes' should be secondary to that and irregularities in the numbers should make little or no difference. There's also the problem that a tabulation of delete/keep/merge comments treats all comments equally, irrespective of the intent behind comments (e.g. disruption), the quality of arguments, or status (e.g. sockpuppet, SPA). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

break 2[edit]

• Delete Deletion discussions are not a vote. What purpose does this serve? After a long 5 day discussion where dozens of users have left hundreds of comments, 1 or 2 users who participated in the debate (and therefore have an opinion on it) use this to "recap" the debate. We don't allow users who have participated in a debate to close it, why should we encourage them to summarize it in some sort of semi-official manner? The closing admin should read the debate and close based on his or her hopefully unbiased discretion, not a summary of the debate written by involved users. Mr.Z-man 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, the closing admin should read the discussion, and this template does not preclude them from doing that. This is just meant to be a point of reference, see my !vote above. And the user list has been removed already so there's no reason to consider this an encouragement to consider XfDs as votes. As for the bias issue, this is addressed and emphasized in the template's documentation. If there is any question of impropriety in the summarizations, the template can be removed from that particular discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:16, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, the documentation basically says "don't use a bias" - that should be a given. If the admin should read the whole discussion before closing, why do they need a "point of reference?" "the template can be removed from that particular discussion" - sounds like a potential for edit warring to me. I just don't see the point. Maybe as a way for the closing admin to summarize things for future reference, but other than that, I don't see the use. Mr.Z-man 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, there is a potential for edit warring, as stated in the documentation. Lots of things have potential for edit warring. The point is to have a place to start in long discussions that would otherwise seem daunting to a potential closing admin. Being able to get the gist of the discussion before having to read through the entire thing could make it seem less insurmountable, also to future !voters who want to know what's happened up until that point prior to commenting. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:59, 17 Feb 2008 (UTC)
        • For the sole reason that its written by people who participated in the discussion (most likely the most vocal people as well), if I saw this on a deletion debate I was closing, I would ignore it until I was done reading, I might ignore it entirely. It may be neutrally written, it may not be, telling people to make sure its neutral in the template documentation is hardly a guarantee. Even if the person who added it tried to be neutral, there's a very good chance they have a strong viewpoint and may have subconsciously made it less neutral than would be ideal or they may have made it non-neutral on purpose to suit their view. I want my closure based on my interpretation of the arguments. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Then don't look at it. No one's forcing you to use it, but evidently some admins find it useful -- the closing already cited as the idea's origin, and the recent "rouge admin" closing, both mentioned the posted recap in a positive way. You may not like it, but that's no reason to delete it. If yours is more of a "moral panic" concern, as in, you don't want this template to exist because you're afraid other admins won't be able to make the pertinent distinction as well as you can, then I think you should try and have a little more faith in them, and trust that they are perfectly able to see the posted summaries purely for what they are, and nothing more. You're presumably not the only intelligent admin. Others will also know that these summaries were created by an editor, that bias may exist, and that to get the full picture they'll need to read through the full discussion. If you still don't understand how any closing admin could possibly see the benefit in these recaps, perhaps contact the admins who already have, and ask them. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:33, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)
            • Um, please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not taking some "I'm better than everyone" attitude at all. While the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kid Nation participants said he liked it, there was also quite a bit of disagreement from the people involved in the discussion about a possible bias in it. My concerns are not of other admins being unintelligent (and the reason I'm still commenting here is to correct the inaccuracies of your attempt at stating my opinions that made it sound like I'm some sort of egotistical person) but rather a quite realistic concern that the most active or vocal participants of a debate are not the best ones to make a neutral summary, even if they try to do so. Now please don't try to read between the lines in this statement, take it at face value. Mr.Z-man 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • So again, if indeed it is the situation that the most vocal participant made a biased summary, that's not something we really need to worry about, since the closing admin would only give it its due weight and nothing more. They can even ignore it if they like. Also, if there is any bias in the statements, it's likely that other participants will correct it. These summaries are in plain sight to everyone, so I don't think anyone could get away with posting a biased summary, at least not for very long. And again, in the unlikely event that someone posts a biased summary, and no one notices it, corrects it, or removes it, and the biased version does make it through to the closing -- what exactly is your concern there, then? That a biased summary will exist and be ignored by the closing admin, since you agree he will be intelligent enough to realize it's biased, or that the admin will take it at face value and give it undue weight, which you already said is not what you meant? I don't see any case where this would cause actual trouble, except if it causes an edit war, in which case I've included instructions that it be removed from the discussion. Hopefully that directive is followed, but if we see that it isn't, we can always act at that time (revisit TfD), rather than predicting the future. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:59, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)
                • If people give it almost no weight when closing the debate, what use does it serve? Once you read it, you can't "unread" it. If you read it first, even if you don't intend to specifically give it weight, it still represents your first impression of the arguments. Mr.Z-man 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • I said admins may ignore it if they choose to, which doesn't mean it would never have a purpose. As for its subliminal effect, the same could be said for an invalid !vote due to a policy violation. Admins can't "unread" those either, yet somehow, they (hopefully) manage to put it out of their minds. Besides which, as I said, the likelihood of a biased summary making it through to closing is a longshot. And finally, I have every confidence that admins will not give the summary undue weight, and be personally vigilante to that end. And another finally: Users sum up the arguments of others all the time in their comments; but we don't seem to be worried about that possible misrepresentation unduly influencing the closing admin's decision. Admins are hopefully careful to take these things into account already. This really shouldn't be a concern, if we trust our admins to do what they already do. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:53, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

BF, you and I are in almost total agreement. At the end of the day, it sounds as though virtually everyone in this discussion agrees in principle to almost every point brought up. If only the rest of discussions on Wikipedia could be so... civil. Keep or not, at least allow me to userfy the work at bare minimum as per my original note (way) above. Thanks to all! VigilancePrime (talk) :-) 20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. :) I think that the disagreement in the above discussion revolves primarily around issues of presentation and perception rather than intent or the nature of deletion discussions. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

break 3[edit]

• Keep It is useful. нмŵוτнτ 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This perpetuates !voting, oversimplifies the possible outcomes, and can even result in misstating the current "tally" (even unintentional) unless every participant in the discussion adds himself or herself and checks periodically to ensure that no one has change it; there can be tremendous difference of opinion over what arguments and what finer points need to be summarized. I added my name to the one that was earlier at the Category:Rouge admins discussion so that I wouldn't be ignored but I hated doing it. As here, I didn't even use a bold !vote in the discussion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment This is an odd TfD, in that it's not really the template we're talking about, but rather an idea, a method, being tied to a template. I can see both pros and cons to such a method, but I'd be interested to see where it leads. I propose making a project page for this idea so that the community can explore the concept, regardless of the template that might display such a summary (and a template might not even be needed for such an idea). -- Ned Scott 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Like tally boxes, separating keeps and deletes into separate sections, or bolding keep/delete recommendations, use of this template sabotages the consensus-making process by biasing the closing admin; distilling and assessing the arguments is his job, not the random bloke who slapped a template on the end of the discussion. Delete. —Cryptic 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep this can be used to greatly assist discussions. In practice, the sort of discussions where it is needed, do tend to be polarized--when they arent, this wont be needed. it will be good to have a standardized way of doing things. This permits a much more nuanced view than tally boxes. any admin who would be confused by things such as this should not be closing afds in the first place. DGG (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The problem with this is that it has thus far only been used to try to influence the closure of a deletion debate. If the closer of a deletion debate chooses to set out their rationale, then fine, but it is not for participants ion the debate to assume ownership by logging teir version of a "recap" of the debate - this will always result either in one side having the benefit of summarising the debate, or an edit war. This is, therefore, redundant per good xFD closure practice and existing templates for closure. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guy, that's an accusation. I can't speak to the second trial use, but the first use was wholly neutral and wholly appropriate and I take exception to your charge otherwise. Perhaps you can demonstrate rather than allege? (Side note, the first use, I thought, characterized the discussion toward the opposite of my personal view, if anything, which makes your assertion all the less believable.)   VigilancePrime   •   15:20, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)   :-)  

• "The problem with this is that it has thus far only been used to try to influence the closure of a deletion debate" -- If you're going to make a claim like that, which no one, including the closing admins, seems to thus far agree with, you'll have to somehow back it up. If however you're just making a baseless claim, then you of course don't need to back it up, and the rest of us can just ignore it. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:10, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

break 4[edit]

• If the proponents of this template are so convinced that a biased use of it won't affect the close of a discussion, I really don't see why they're so quick to edit war it out of this one. —Cryptic 06:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's of no use if you post it with deliberately biased wording to prove a point, which you have done by your own admission. Not to mention it's a violation of WP:POINT. No one's disputing the fact that it can be used to post biased summaries, but when used that way it should be either corrected or removed, as is stated in the documentation. I am quite confident that a biased summary would not unduly influence the closing, but that doesn't mean I must allow an admittedly biased summary to remain in the discussion. It might not be harmful but it certainly isn't helpful. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:29, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
    • What is under dispute is that every use of it is biased and every attempt to correct that bias is disruptive. Your own use of it to influence the close of Category:Rouge admins is plenty illustrative of that. —Cryptic 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Do you have any basis for that accusation? I tried very hard to be neutral in that summarization, and thought I had succeeded since no one complained about its content or made any attempt to correct it, aside from the user listing which is no longer present. If you found something specifically biased about it perhaps you'd care to clarify that to me, but that's probably best done on my talk page since it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. Or maybe you think it is, in which case I guess you should proceed here. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:49, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
      • Are you suggesting that the closer of that debate, a respected Wikipedian and regular on UCFD, closed it out of process because of a template? If so take it to DRV instead of using this deletion debate to debate that. Fact is the deletion has not been contested so your argument is moot. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • No, I'm saying that that the use of the template caused pages of disruption, that the template arguments will always be biased, even if not intentionally (as mine were), and that if the closing administrator ideally shouldn't be influenced by the template at all, it shouldn't be there in the first place. —Cryptic 07:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The closing admin quoted the template in his closing so it seems apparent that he both didn't think it was biased and found it helpful. The same goes for the first use of a recap that I linked to above. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:09, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)

←He also makes a point of going on to show that the template use left out several arguments, and inspection of the debate reveals arguments stated neither in the template nor in the close. There's no way to know whether these arguments were left unmentioned because jc37 thought they were meritless, because both he and you overlooked them, or because you intentionally left them out of the template and he assumed that the template was largely complete. In a debate where the template was used and the close was merely delete or keep without further explanation—and this will be the norm, have no doubt of that—the problem's even worse. —Cryptic 07:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• So you're suggesting the closing admin read the summary instead of the discussion, acting on the assumption that it was complete. So you indeed are suggesting the closing admin closed out-of-process because of the template, as EconomicsGuy had interpreted. Though you also say that he added other points left out of the template, so those statements seem contradictory, especially since, if you read trough the closing, the admin refers to other points brought up in the discussion. You're either saying the admin closed the discussion without looking at it, in which case your argument belongs at DRV, or you're making a conflicting statement that doesn't make any sense. Either way, those would have nothing to do with this template. If our admins are closing discussions without reading them, there's a much more serious issue at work here than a template. But I really doubt that's the case. You're making a very circumstantial interpretation of the closing that's based solely on your own opinion of what must be going on in other people's heads. You're basically saying you don't trust the closing admin, or perhaps any closing admin. Or maybe you're just unhappy with that particular closing decision, which would be my guess. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:46, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't put words in my mouth; the only people saying the I thought the close was improper are EconomicsGuy II and you, and I have no opinion on the category itself other than a general contempt for user categories and boxes. I'm looking at this from the point of view of a DRV regular, where, if use of this template becomes common practice, we will very quickly start seeing cases where the close is "The result of the debate was DELETE. ~~~~", a biased ((recap)) leaves out key arguments, a DRV petitioner claims that the arguments weren't given proper weight, and we have to take the claim at face value. —Cryptic 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Not buying it. You explicitly mentioned Category:Rouge admins as an example of improper use. You could have made your point above without mentioning the UCFD - instead you specifically mention it and elaborate on the close in great detail. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I explicitly mentioned Category:Rouge admins as an example of improper use of this template, where—between the closing administrator's comments and the template's placement by a very vocal participant in the debate, who had in fact been blocked for using the category to falsely claim to be an administratory—it clearly was improper. What you and Equazcion are repeatedly asserting is that I think that the close was improper, which I do not; what I think is that because of the template, we have no way to know for sure. —Cryptic 08:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • We will have to agree to disagree about the latter part of your comment because I have more faith in process and XfD closers than that. Are we arguing the block too now? You are in the category yourself despite your claim that you don't support them. It is obvious that you are arguing based on your disagreement with the close. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • (ec) I think you're preoccupied with this simply because it's a template. Users summarize the comments of others often in deletion discussions, but you're presumably not worried about that; or correction, you're not worried that that's a reason we won't know for sure whether or not closings are proper. Admins see all kinds of comments and claims by a lot of different people during deletion debates. They see summations of arguments by the other side, including strawman arguments, and they already know what to take with a grain of salt. They would defend against such DRV accusations the same way they would any other type -- by clarifying their reasoning and hopefully explaining that they weighed all the comments adequately. Do we know for sure that the summary didn't unduly influence the closing? No, I suppose not, but we aren't any less sure than if the summary weren't there, because the same concern can be attributed to any other participant's comment. The fact that these summaries happen to be contained in pretty boxes doesn't make them official; admins will know that, and the fact that they look all pretty will similarly not be sufficient DRV rationale. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:02, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec) I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said that he may have "...assumed the template was largely complete" and that may have been the reason some "arguments were left unmentioned" in the closing. I'm not sure how to interpret that other than to mean the admin didn't read the discussion, but please do clarify those statements if I'm wrong. Of course, assuming my interpretation is correct, then you should not be considering that as a possibility, if indeed you do trust him as you claim to. The concern about people bringing up this template as having been given undue weight at DRV is new. However again, anyone can change the summary at any time if they feel it's biased, so again the biased version wouldn't even make it to closing. It will have either been edited or removed. And if somehow a biased summary does make it to closing, and is brought up at DRV as having been the sole deciding factor, the answer to that will in most cases simply be "no, admins don't do that" (or shouldn't, and if they do they shouldn't be admins). I disagree with your prediction that closing will turn into a simple Delete or Keep without additional rationale provided. Admins, again, know better that. They won't close a long debate without providing reasoning, and they certainly wouldn't rely solely on the summation of a participant as that rationale, in favor of posting their own. That would be inappropriate behavior for a closing, and if it happens then the admin's status should be questioned. But I really don't even see it happening. It would be a stupid thing to do, and (most) admins are smarter than that. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:19, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a tool. All tools have the potential to be misused, and all tools have the potential to be very helpful. We don't outlaw steak knives just because somebody could stab somebody else with them. You want to know a wikipedia tool that has the most potential for misuse of them all? The edit button! Anybody can come along and even anonymously put in their own POV or disrupt an article!!!!! But we have more trust than that, don't we? We trust that as wikipedians we will mentor eachother and that in the end consensus will prevail. Any effort to remove any tool just because a person with ill-intentions could misuse it is misguided. Our very core principal at wikipedia is "go ahead, we trust you... but we are watching you." This template should be no different. I am the administrator who made the statement that this template was a neat idea. As an administrator I would never rely on it for a closing decision... I would probably look at it before I post a closing decision, as a quick double check, a common-sense check, if you will. I disagree with the removal of the list of names. I understand the vote-count concern, but AfD's are NEVER a votecount, and no matter if we used pound-sign sections or tally boxes or what, never will be. I trust all of the administrators who close debates enough to know that they are following the administrators' guide to deletion - determination of rough consensus instructions. One thing that heppens in debates occasionally, is that users will be quite unclear in their intentions. There was this CfD once, where the first user after the nom said something to the effect of "I agree..." then a long complicated comment that only people who were aware of the ongoing edit wars would understand. The next editor also started their comment with "I also agree...", the next said "Personally, I tend to agree...", then the next said "I would support that..." It was very strange, none of them used a bolded recommendation! The next editor did make a bolded recommendation which matched the nomination. So I assumed I had a nomination, 4 people who agreed/ supported the nomination, and a fifth who basically restated the nomination. I closed it and was awestruck at the deletion review. One of these recap templates would have shown me I was totally wrong in my read of the comments and saved everyone concerned the wikidrama. So I say keep Template:Recap, and put the list of names back in. Perhaps change it to allow for more recommedations like merge and redirect. Oh, it is a neat idea, and WP:ILIKEIT, too. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note I have provided a recap summary (not using a template) on the talk page for anyone to read for whatever purpose they choose to do so. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 result of the debate was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G7 (author request) Happy‑melon 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Brisbane Broncos Premiership (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is highly complicated and been made redudunt by templates put in place by the WikiProject Rugby league, see disscussion here. I have gone through and made sure that this template isn't on any articles. The talk page and all sub pages can be deleted too. —  SpecialWindler talk  02:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[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 result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:New York City DOE Region9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This organization was disbanded. The Regional structure of the NYC Department of Education was short-lived. The Regions (including Region 9) no longer exist, no schools belong to them. Further, they existed so briefly (2004 - 2007) that their names almost immediately dropped out of usage. This template was designed to link NYC schools to the Region they belonged to. No regions --> no need for these templates. Jd2718 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. I agree with your reasoning, it makes sense. In addition, it would be nice to have an article pertaining to the history of the short-lived Region system. --HockeyInJune (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note, there also exist articles on each region. I've nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_York_City_DOE_Region_1_(3rd_nomination)#New_York_City_DOE_Region_1 Jd2718 (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Reply[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 result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 06:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Shin'etsu Main Line (Nagano) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no reason to have separate template specifically for this area instead of Template:Shin'etsu Main Line. — Sushiya (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Navigational templates for stations on a line is useful. Splitting up a line based on the prefectures it goes through is a bad precedent, and would ultimately end up in making the navigational templates less useful. Neier (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Changed to Delete (see below). For lines which have a large number of stations, it's useful to have the line split into several smaller segments so the templates doesn't become so huge, especially when used on articles about stations used by several lines. The main line template is too large, IMHO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. In case of junction station articles with several line templates, templates are collapsed in default so that size of templates does not matter. --Sushiya (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Although I agree with Sushiya regarding the impact of the size of the templates, if it is a problem, then a case could be made to split the Shin'etsu line templates into three sections (the two sections that JR still operates, and the one section in the middle); but, that division has nothing to do with this template as far as I can see. The subdivision here is strictly arbitrary, and besides being a form of overcategorization of line-in-prefecture, half the stations listed are in Niigata (not Nagano), and not all the stations on the line which are in Nagano Prefecture are listed. Neier (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I didn't research it enough to see that. I agree that any splits should be logical, and that this template should be deleted as it is not a logical split. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.