Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates

continued from main page

...continued from here.

• I'm not sure if you read the argument posed at the top of this page, but it's not as simple as not liking them. These particular boxes were created to serve a specific purpose that has since been forgotten. As far as TfD, this is a deletion discussion, not a mandate -- albeit also not taking place on the traditional TfD page. For such a wide range of templates, I'm sure the thinking was that it could be considered a "centralized discussion", and I doubt the original poster was trying to fly this proposal under the radar, so to speak. It doesn't really matter where the discussion takes place, as long as it is discussed and advertised (and it is/has been); although a notice could also be posted at TfD, if it hasn't been already.

  Removing unnecessary templates from circulation altogether has always been a valid option (ie. via TfD). We don't generally tell nominators there that they should forget about deleting templates, and instead sneakily remove them from articles as part of an otherwise good edit.Equazcion (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  I understand the arguments about the interpretation of the "intended use", and I don't really disagree with the speculation that the intent of their creation was limited. I don't see what real relevance that has to this sort of discussion, I guess. Even completely conceding the point that their currently being "misused"... so what? Deleting them because some people misuse them seems to be akin to "Cutting off your nose to spite your face"... People obviously like them, and for more then what their "supposed" to be used for. What's the big deal? Who are you or I to try telling people that their opinions are just wrong?

  Anyway, I said "quietly", not "sneakily". If the alternative to "tell[ing] nominators there that they should forget about deleting templates, and instead sneakily remove them from articles as part of an otherwise good edit." is to start a campaign to disrupt Wikipedia, then maybe we ought to be examining our motivations for editing. I don't see this hostile, confrontational discussion style as doing anything to build consensus, let alone anything to actually improve the encyclopedic content. Call it being "sneaky" if you prefer, but at least if your removing templates while otherwise copy editing articles then you're actually improving Wikipedia rather then getting cht up in process.
  — Ω (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  It's a deletion discussion. Deletion discussions sometimes get confrontational, perhaps even most of the time. This particular discussion seems relatively tame to me, actually, compared to most others I've been involved in. I'm not sure why you see this as a campaign to disrupt Wikipedia, unless you think the same of all deletion discussions. It's possible Wikipedia could get by just fine without ever deleting anything -- I believe that's even been suggested before. But, for now, we do generally delete things that we see no need for, and that don't jive with our goals. We really wouldn't be "cutting off" anything, least of all our noses, as these boxes have basically become useless disclaimers. They serve no real purpose -- except that some people enjoy putting up useless disclaimers. People like doing lots of things that we nevertheless don't allow, such as posting original research. Equazcion (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  I guess that what I'm trying to get across here is that you're not convincing the "other side" of anything. You're a deletionist, which is fine, but I'm not... I would be perfectly happy if nothing were ever deleted, and I'm willing to be upfront about that. I'm generally a reasonable person though, so if presented with a good argument I'm certainly willing and able to change my opinion. I don't see how deleting a series of high use templates wouldn't be at least somewhat disruptive, however. That's not an excuse to keep them, in and of itself, but I think that it ought to raise the bar of the reasoning to do something like that. Simply stating "they serve no real purpose" isn't an actual argument for example, since it doesn't really say anything.
  — Ω (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well they're not only useless, but also disclaimers -- Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles -- so that'd be one reason. You seem to be saying this doesn't need to be deleted because nothing ever really needs to be deleted, and my point is that such an argument doesn't really work on Wikipedia since deleting things is an accepted practice here. Furthermore, an accepted reason to delete things is simply that they don't serve a purpose, as we don't really keep things around unless they do something good. But even disregarding that, these are a violation of the "no disclaimers" policy.Equazcion (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  True, using Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is a somewhat effective argument... if you buy into the view that these are disclaimers. I don't think that those who favor their use view them as such, however. Even if you're unmovable off of the opinion that they are disclaimers, that guideline specifically makes an exception for: "temporal templates such as {{current}} or {{recent death}}. These alert the reader that the article content may be subject to significant changes in the near future for reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia."
  — Ω (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  This proposal would probably be accompanied by a change to that policy. Actually I think that policy is in need of a change anyway, since temporal template documentation specifically says they're not intended to be used that way. Anyway, if they're not disclaimers then what are they? Again, we don't keep things around just because some people like them. There generally needs to be a good reason. We don't need to prove that something causes 'harm' per se in order to get rid of it.Equazcion (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  I didn't actually (intend to) state that their absolutely not disclaimers. Their just not Disclaimers... Their of a decidedly different character from "This article contains spoilers!", or "Warning: Sex!" style Disclaimers are or would be. As with most issues, it's defining where the line is within the grey area that is important. Incidentally, I think the fact that implementing this proposal seems to be causing more and more other areas to change illustrates the fundamental problem that started my oppose !vote. WP:POLICY states that policies and guidelines should be descriptive rather then prescriptive in part in order to address this sort of problem. This seems to be creating conflict rather then resolving it, as well. Taken as a whole, I just don't see how this is effective in actually building Wikipedia.
  — Ω (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Break 1

A few replies:

• I chose a centralized discussion over a TfD for several reasons. First of all, nominating dozens of templates at the same time will inevitably result in !votes like "Procedural keep! This is not the right place for such a massive change". I've been there. And by now, I actually agree with that opinion. Second, a TfD runs for a week, and I'd like to have more time for this discussion, since it is a massive change. And third, no matter what people say, TfD is being treated like a vote by a lot of people, and I wanted this to be a discussion, not a vote. I wanted people to use actual arguments, and from what I can see, that has worked out quite nicely on all sides of the discussion.
• This is of course not supposed to be a discussion for a sanction to begin a "massive edit war". To the contrary, I hope that a clear consensus one way or another will result from this discussion, clearer than 7 days of TfD voting could bring. And, hopefully, people will respect this.
• "Simply stating "they serve no real purpose" isn't an actual argument for example, since it doesn't really say anything." I did my best to lay out all my arguments why these templates do indeed not serve any purpose (anymore) above when I started the discussion. If you find my arguments unconvincing, feel free to say so. And if they do not serve a purpose, I firmly believe that Wikipedia will be better off without them, hence the proposal to deprecate them.
• --Conti|✉ 10:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  OK, great, that sounds like terrific reasoning for listing this here. If I may suggest, once you do feel that there has been adequate discussion here, it'll still be a good idea to create a TfD and reference this (I can pretty much guarantee a strong reaction).

  I brought up "edit warring" only to address the subject, I wasn't attempting to be accusatory. I think that it's an important logistical question. Say that we draw a consensus to "depricate" these templates, what exactly happens then? Does someone go on a massive edit campaign (I imagine with a bot) and remove all instances of the template's use? Or, even worse, is some admin supposed to simply delete them, presenting those who will not agree with this and who probably have not participated in the discussion with a fait acompli? This kind of thing touches on the main issue with these sorts of prescriptive change proposals. I don't see that many participants here (toolserver says that only 43 people have participated here, so far), and this is likely to be as visible a change as changing something on the main page is.

  Anyway, It's clear to me that several of you don't like these mBoxes, which is fine. As I've already said, I don't particularly like them either, and I tend to remove most of them from articles whenever I can. I could get on board with adding stronger statements to their documentation stating that they should have limited use, but I don't see that as any reason to delete them. These specific mboxes actually do serve a legitimate limited purpose, I think. Their currently used to immediately point out that the article describes something with some sort of immediacy (a couple of detailed arguments were given above). Regardless of the original intent, and regardless of how any of us may individually feel about that, the reality is this is how they are used, and people seem to want them to be available based on obvious usage patterns. I could get on board with either groups of editors or even a bot automatically removing them after some established period of time (say, two months). I think that it should be clear though that is someone then readded the mbox (manually, of course), then that should be respected. The new message could obviously be removed again after the time period has elapsed. The point being, I think that there are plenty of less disruptive means to address the issue then this.
  — Ω (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  You touch a few rather general points in your first paragraph, and I don't disagree with them. However, I don't think there's much we can actually do about it. Every kind of discussion, whether it's a TfD, an AfD, or this, simply cannot reach everyone. I tried my best to advertise this discussion in all relevant places: At WP:CENT, at the Village Pump, at all talk pages of the templates, at more than a dozen WikiProjects that use these templates, at Wikipedia talk:Current and future event templates, and so on. Leaving a note at TfD might be a good idea, too, although I'm not quite sure how that could be done. A fake nomination could be made, but I'm worried that people will simply start to vote on that at the TfD page, creating somewhat of a mess. It's still worth considering, tho. 43 people actually doesn't sound so bad for a wiki discussion, most that I've participated in had less, and I'm pretty sure that any TfD about this would have gathered a lot less people than that. Still, more are always welcome, of course. This is not supposed to become a fait accompli, hence my attempts at reaching as many people as possible for this discussion. As for what happens if there is a consensus to deprecate the templates, I would imagine that a bot would remove them (preserving the categories), yes.

  I don't agree with what you write in your second paragraph. Everyone should respect consensus, whether they personally agree with it or not. I shouldn't go ahead and remove all those templates because I don't like them, and others shouldn't just reinstate them when there is a clear consensus not to use them. There is a reason that we have centralized discussions and deletion discussions and so on, after all. If we could just do as we please (and define consensus by whether these templates are currently used in articles or not), there wouldn't be any need for such discussions. --Conti|✉ 21:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that 43 is actually a fairly good response for a Wikipedia discussion. The main reason that I mention it is to illustrate the primary problem with something like this, which is even further amplified by the fact that 43 contributors is a decent response. 43 contributors is an infinitesimal fraction of the total population of Wikipedia users (both editors and readers). I don't begrudge having the conversation at all, but I don't see how any consensus to do anything significant could be drawn from it. If the issue were something along the lines of changing the wording of the documentation then that would be a reasonable conclusion of consensus to draw from it (and, in my opinion, some need for that has already been established). Amplifying the desired consensus opinion to the level of "we should delete <insert class of templates here>" is almost a non-starter, though. Are there any admins out there even willing to take on the actual task of performing the deletions?

  Part of what I was attempting to point out in the second paragraph is that there currently seems to be consensus that the use of {{Current}} style templates is at least partially OK. As mentioned, their use is even integrated into a guideline. I guess that ultimately, while I agree with part of the reasons for doing this (reducing use of mboxes in general, and these in particular) is a laudable goal, I think that this proposal is simply overreaching. it's started a conversation about it, at least. :)
  — Ω (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  We can't expect millions of users to weigh in on every decision. We have a centralized discussion section so that people who care about such things can be a part of them. As I mention below, I think you're making more of this than it is. Future boxes are really not that big of an issue. If this were a fundamental change to the way Wikipedia operates, we'd post watchlist notices and so forth, as has been done in the past for major changes -- but nothing like that is warranted here. We're just talking about some boxes that are useless. You're concerned that people who simply enjoy putting them on articles will miss being able to do so, which really isn't such a big concern in the grand scheme of things. And there are plenty of admins who would be fine with carrying out the actual deletion, because it's frankly no big deal. Equazcion (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  I couldn't disagree more, in that we are in fact talking about a massive change here. The easiest way to illustrate that fact is to point out that a) we're essentially discussing the deletion of a whole category at Category:Temporal templates and b) just about all of the {{Current}} derived templates are permanently protected as high-risk templates now. If deleting them is not a big deal, I don't know what would be....
  — Ω (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  What would be.... the userbox debate, admin hierarchy, BLP, non-admin rollback.... Those are significant issues that go to the heart of Wikipedia's principals. Wide use doesn't necessarily mean a big issue. So far the only rationale you've brought is that people like putting them up. Is there anything else? Equazcion (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  I understand your point, but as I said, it is a very general one and could be applied to all discussions. We have millions (yes, millions) of user accounts. Tens of thousands of those can be regarded as "active". And 43 out of tens of thousands is certainly a very, very small number. You are free to think that no kind of consensus for any kind of big change can result from that, but to me, the logical conclusion of that would be that no big change would ever happen around here. And that's pretty impractical. :) I agree with MusicMaker5376 below that this is starting to get rather off-topic, so we should probably focus back on the issue at hand. Any theoretical discussion on how many people you need to screw in a light bulb form a consensus could be moved to the talk page, if there are no objections to that. Also, note that nearly all of the Future templates are not protected for being a high-risk template. --Conti|✉ 11:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Break 2

• I have to ask, Ohms, what "conflict" you see -- because until our disussion, I haven't actually seen any (if this can even be considered a conflict). Also: "I think the fact that implementing this proposal seems to be causing more and more other areas to change" -- This hasn't been implemented yet. It's just a proposal, and I'm not sure what you mean when you say that 'areas' have 'changed' as a result of it.Equazcion (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  The conflict that I see is primarily this discussion, right now. We could all be doing much more productive things with our time, after all. Gazing into my crystal ball, I can imagine the hew and cry that would occur if some sort of mass deletion action were taken (based on the discussion so far). Anyway, I was getting tired when I wrote the sentence you quoted above, which is why the language is confused. Basically, what I'm saying is that it seems as more discussion occurs, more and more changes need to be made in order to accommodate what is being proposed here. It starts out with the deletion of individual message boxes, and grows to include changes in a related guideline, the creation of a bot to clean up after the change is made, and dealing appropriately with the very likely incidences of these mboxes being recreated or reincarnated in slightly different forms.
  — Ω (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  I shouldn't have offered a lengthy response when you first commented then, cause then rather than seeming like a conflict this would've just been one person making one comment pointing out that others might have a problem with this. But I have a weakness for debate. Anyway, that's basically still what it is. No one's actually expressed strong feelings against this, except you, who seem to just be worried that others might have those feelings. I think you're making a bigger deal out of this than it is. I don't think there are too many who love these boxes as much as you think. I think people just use them cause they exist, and therefore they think they should.Equazcion (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  (*confused*) "No one's actually expressed strong feelings against this, except you" isn't true at all... I see keep !votes above from a couple contributors (Sphilbrick, LtPowers, and Garion96, just to pick three semi-randomly). Perhaps your allowing your perception to be clouded by your bias, here?
  — Ω (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  If you think my comment was a keep vote you are confused indeed. :) Garion96 (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  Strong feelings. Yeah there are a couple of keep votes, but the degree of conflict you're saying this represents is just not present, as far as I can see. I can think of many issues that were rather divisive on Wikipedia, and this really doesn't look like one of them. Again most of the conflict seems to be coming from you.Equazcion (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

  I could be more confrontational if that would make you more comfortable... LOL.
  — Ω (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  ...The point, of course, being that one man does not a conflict make. You've taken up most of this page with your argument, and then said, "See what a conflict this is causing?" You see my point. You're not pointing out an existing conflict. You're creating it. It's basically all you so far.Equazcion (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  Hey, three quarters of the volume here is in reply to you... it takes two to Tango, you know? ;) Anyway, I wasn't referring to the volume at all, when I made that statement. The simple fact that this page and all of us are here is indicative of some conflict. We're not editing articles while replying to this, are we? It's not a fight (yet), which is certainly good, but to dismiss it as being a non issue because there's no significant acrimony isn't good.
  — Ω (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  Your basis for saying this is a massive issue has been that there is conflict, which is what garnered my reply that there really isn't.Equazcion (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  No... my basis for claiming that there is a massive issue is the fact that... there's a massive issue here. If deleting an entire category of templates, most of which are high risk templates due to usage, is not a massive issue then nothing is. I wouldn't characterize my feelings on this as being "strong", regardless. I felt strongly enough about it to post a reply, but I'm not likely to be angry over anything about this.
  — Ω (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Break 3

I hate to butt in, but you guys seem to be having a conversation about whether or not there is a conflict and not whether these should be deprecated... which, no offense, is extremely silly.
I think we need to realize something, here: the arguments for deprecation amount to "these templates serve no purpose, they're ugly, and they're not consistent with policy" and the arguments against it amount to "yes, they do, no, they're not, and yes, they are". Perhaps the change should be made in how these templates are implemented rather than their wholesale deletion.
A question for the original poster: is there a particular section of articles that bear this template that seem more numerous than others? I have to admit that they seem few and far between in the articles that I read and edit.c — MusicMaker5376 05:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm glad you did "butt in", because you're right about us going slightly OT.

Anyway, I also agree with the points that you made above, and the question being asked. I primarily just wanted to add a break in here.
— Ω (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Template:Future building, Template:Future film, Template:Future game, Template:Future public transportation and Template:Future sport are all used in more than 500 articles. Template:Future album In about 450. --Conti|✉ 11:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

An attempt to change how the templates are used has been in effect for a while. The guidelines section of those templates' documentation was changed a long time ago to tell people how to use the templates. The long history of people either not reading or ignoring the documentation, combined with the extreme rarity of situations where the guidelines' stipulations actually apply, is what led to this proposal.Equazcion (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Looking through some of the inlinks to some of them, I can see the issue. (Wow.) However, I do see the need for something along these lines. Perhaps we need {{underdevelopment}} -- a template that can be used for subjects that are currently in the developmental stage. Once it begins construction, filming, recording, performing, or production, the template can be removed -- with a STRONG stipulation that it's not to be used on articles that have a future year in the title. — MusicMaker5376 00:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines already disallow articles created for any media that hasn't begun production yet, so the tags only reside on articles whose subjects have begun production (otherwise the articles wouldn't even exist). Besides which you're basically just suggesting stronger wording. Since people seem to be ignoring the documentation right now, I don't think that'll do the trick. This is also a question of what the tags actually add to the articles, and so far no one's really given an answer. As Conti points out, if the articles are written correctly the tags are redundant. Equazcion (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The "what the tags actually add to the articles" line of argument against using them just isn't going to gain any traction. The main reason that I personally don't find it convincing of anything is that such logic could be extended to ridiculous extremes, such as removing all mbox templates (which, incidentally, I wouldn't actually mind have happen since I find them to be jarring, but that doesn't keep it from being an extreme position). The main issue here is that any such arguments need to be refined to be more specific, somehow. This idea that mass deletion is the only solution is not the only solution, or even the best solution.

I think that many people would support something to automatically remove these templates after a certain period of time has elapsed, for example. Doing something like that would make it immediately obvious, to those who do actually read the docs, that these templates are only going to be meaningful to address issues which are actually short term. The added benefit is that no one particularly needs to worry about any subjective "misuse", since specific appearances of the template would be removed after some period of time anyway.
— Ω (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The "what the tags actually add" argument may not hold any water for you, but it appears to for most people. In my Wikipedia experience it's been a perfectly valid argument for deleting something. In deletion discussions it's pretty much the first question addressed, especially for templates.Equazcion (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. A notable example would be spoiler tags. They were deleted similarly because they were overused and didn't seem to serve a purpose, despite the fact that many people liked and used them (myself included, actually). Equazcion (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed the guideline that states that only subjects that have entered production are worthy of an article. Chevrolet Volt, for example. Are we using different definitions of "production"? — MusicMaker5376 02:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to media. See WP:NFF, for example. Regardless, there is still the "adds nothing"/redundancy argument, which I'll maintain has always been a valid reason to delete, and has been cited by many on this page.Equazcion (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. Although the Volt might not have gone into mass-production, it is well into phases that would equate to production of media -- it's been designed and built. Equazcion (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to mass-production.

Speaking to the "adds nothing/redundancy" argument, the same argument can be made about every mbox. All articles need {{cleanup}}. All articles need {{expansion}}. Why don't we just get rid of them all? — MusicMaker5376 03:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean other crap exists? Hey, if this proposal succeeds no one's stopping you from nominating the cleanup tag as well, or starting another centralized discussion to propose deletion of ALL article tags. But it's not a great argument to bring here.

Yes, it's a sliding scale. I'll have to invoke Conti here in saying that these are very general arguments that could be brought in any deletion debate. We could delete everything, we could never delete anything. You could start another centralized discussion to discuss the merits of template deletion altogether. Currently on Wikipedia things get deleted depending on consensus. I personally wouldn't equate the uselessness of the cleanup tag with future tags, but you're welcome to that view, and you should feel free to nominate it for deletion as well. The cleanup and other maintenance tags could be abused similarly, but so far I'd say they havn't. I also think they say something useful that couldn't otherwise be stated from within an article.Equazcion (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact that arguments are listed in the "arguments to avoid" article does not automatically invalidate the argument. In this case, yes, there are "other stuff exists" arguments being made here. On the other hand, There are also "I don't like it" arguments at the heart of this entire proposal. The only progress that pointing all of that out makes is that we're not doing any effective consensus building here, so far. Anyway, I've said my piece here. If you get someone to delete the templates then so be it, I'm just going to go back to editing (I keep allowing myself to get caught up in these inane policy discussions... sheesh!). Good luck!
— Ω (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are some "I don't like it" arguments being presented here, but there are other arguments being presented also. Whereas basically the only argument being presented on the other side is "lots of people like it". The argument's mere placement in the "arguments to avoid" list wasn't my point, but it is useful to link to that list, so that, if people read the posted rationale there for its inclusion, they might understand more clearly why it's a bad argument. As I attempted to explain, in addition to linking there, other "bad" stuff existing says nothing about whether or not this should exist. The merits of other templates are for another discussion, which I invite you or anyone else to open up. For now, we're talking about future tags and nothing more, but I nevertheless did explain how other article tags differ from these.Equazcion (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly an WP:OTHERCRAP argument. I'm pointing out that the arguments you're currently making are applicable to any mbox.

And I think I'm going the way of Ohms Law, at least as far as you're concerned, Equazcion. I really have no desire to continue "discussing" with someone who has no intent to have his mind changed. — MusicMaker5376 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an othercrap argument, though. When you say "If you're going to say that about this, you could say that about other things too, and we keep those around, so why not this?", that's exactly what the "other crap" argument is. As far as having no "intent to have my mind changed", well, I'm being just as adamant as you, I think. Anyone failing to convince someone of their viewpoint may think that of the person they're talking to. Do you really think you're more willing to have your mind changed than I am? No need to answer. Just saying. It's terribly easy and not at all useful to say the other side is just being stubborn when you can't seem to convince them of your argument. In this situation, for example, I consider it my failing, not yours, that I've thus far not been able to present a convincing enough argument to sway you.Equazcion (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference I see between templates like Template:Cleanup and the Future templates is that the former describe an actual problem, while the latter describe a possible problem. One says "There is a problem, please fix it." while the other says "There might be a problem. Just so you know." No one is going to add a cleanup template to an article because it might be messed up in the future. And, similarly, Template:Expand is only supposed to be used when there is an actual reason that a section or article should be expanded, preferrably accompanied with an explanation on the talk page (Whether the template is actually used that way or not is besides the point. Personally, I think the expand template is used way too often).

As for the possibility of Template:Underdevelopment, I don't really see any difference to Template:Future there, apart from the scope. It might not be used at 2028 Summer Olympics, but it would be used at The Smurfs (film), for instance, and I just don't see the need for any kind of template along those lines on articles like that. As I said somewhere above, I can only see the use of such a template when the article itself is not making it obvious that something is under development/happening in the future. And then the article needs a cleanup tag. --Conti|✉ 10:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

One of your main arguments against Template:Future has been the scope: that it's been overused. I think Template:Underdevelopment would cut down greatly on the number of articles.

"...and I just don't see the need for any kind of template along those lines on articles like that." And I do. Like I said above, people read that so-and-so is involved in the early stages of a project and don't realize that that information is subject to change. I think you're giving the average person an intellect that he doesn't possess. — MusicMaker5376 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The overuse is just one of my arguments, and I think Template:Underdevelopment would/could be used in thousands of articles as well (it could be used in practically all future film and future games articles, for instance). 97% or more of all articles that use a Future template begin with "XY is a future/upcoming/planned album/film/tournament/etc.", and I do assume that people are smart enough to know about the implications of that. Even if it is not as obvious, as in your example, I'm pretty sure people will know the implications. So I suppose we can agree to disagree there. --Conti|✉ 16:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

The argument taking place above -- judging by the sudden falloff in participation in this page by unique users, I think people might be put off from posting their opinions on the main issue for fear of butting in on an esoteric dispute (largely my fault for perpetuating that dispute). Can we perhaps move the bulk of the large argument above to the talk page and continue there, and direct people there with a link ("See the talk page for a continuation of this discussion..." or something)? Equazcion (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

There seem to be some people who view this page as one big "shortcut". I don't know where this is coming from, and it's frankly starting to piss me off. Was this not advertised enough? Did we not wait long enough? Is the centralized discussion area simply not well-accepted enough yet as a place to come to a consensus? Point to a specific problem, please, rather than waiving a dismissive hand at this quite large and well-advertised discussion. Somehow I think that if this took place as a subpage of TfD, we wouldn't be getting this type of flak, and if that's the case, it's really sad that people can't seem to rise above that little bit of bureaucracy. Equazcion (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It was advertised enough, that's not really the issue. The problem is that you (and several others, this is decidedly not a personal issue) seem to want to force your viewpoint on all of the rest of us. Basically, all of you are saying: "These message boxes are dumb, I don't like them , their annoying, they should go!". The rest of us don't really have a strong opinion about them, but "we" (meaning everyone who doesn't actively want to delete them) at least acquiesce to their use, if not outright support their use, obviously. Just because no one has stepped forward with an argument that can convince you to change your mind doesn't mean that you have consensus.

You're right about the point that this probably wouldn't be occurring if this were done on TfD, but that's more of an indictment of the current deletion process then it is support for specific deletions going forward. There are (quite a few, actually) admins out there that just won't do marginal deletions, for one thing. More importantly though, say that you "win" and you convince an admin to delete a template. What does that matter, in the long run? 6 months from now, one of us will simply recreate the thing anyway, regardless of "this had been deleted before" warnings. To be blunt, while it's annoying in the short run, It just doesn't really matter in the long run.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that you think the judgment of consensus here doesn't count because you don't think the reasoning presented here for deletion was strong enough. Anything else? As far as the templates being re-created in the future, there's no less chance of that happening with templates deleted through TfD. If it happens, yes, we'll point back to this discussion, just as people do for templates deleted at TfD. You disagreeing with the consensus here doesn't negate or lessen it. Equazcion (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even read past the first sentence, because you've just got it wrong. You guys are certainly in agreement here locally, I'm just not going to fight it, and apparently no one else is either. That doesn't really change anything though. I'm just trying to tell you that, despite appearances to the contrary, you don't have real consensus here... After actually reading what you wrote though... you've got the idea. Calling that "consensus" is somewhat laughable, is all. It just doesn't matter what I think any more then what you do. Either it will happen or not. *shrug*
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Locally?" "Real consensus?" You seems to have set some standards for what constitutes consensus. I'm not sure what you would consider real and non-local, if not a well-advertised discussion in the centralized discussion area. Again you seem to keep dismissing this consensus, but haven't actually given a reason yet. Equazcion (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not actually going to give a reason either, because the fact is that there isn't one. I don't like this, and I don't agree to it. I don't actually have a strong argument, but nothing that has been presented to go ahead with this has been in the least bit compelling, so I'm just unconvinced. The thing is, as I hinted at above, while I think that this is a terrible idea, ultimately I just don't care about it that much. You seem to care, and you could actually get the templates deleted, so you likely will. That doesn't change the fact that I still don't agree with doing so (which, incidentally, is what makes "we have consensus" laughable. you really don't, it's just that no one is actually fighting you).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So you don't feel compelled by the arguments presented here. You also seem to disagree with WP:CONSENSUS in its statement that in the presence of adequate community exposure, silence does indeed equal consensus. Beyond that you're not actually willing to give reasons (because there aren't any?), but you still seem rather comfortable with continuing with your remarks about this page not constituting consensus. Equazcion (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

←

...no, I don't disagree with WP:CONSENSUS, but then again, I do. Which is kind of the point. You can cite policy or guidelines till you're blue in the face, and it doesn't really change anything. I'm not actually standing in your way regardless, so don't mind me. I'll just sit here, but that doesn't change the fact that I think that this is wrong.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you keep saying that, but for someone who doesn't care you seem to be giving this page a lot of attention. You don't voice particular objections to the proposal, but you instead take the road of remarking every so often that no matter what we do here it doesn't mean anything. And I find that irritating, as I think you would if the situation were reversed, and so I'd like to settle this. You can think this is a bad idea all you want, and you seem to use that (in addition to the silence argument) as a reason to say this doesn't adequately constitute consensus. But consensus on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean a unanimous decision. Equazcion (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that I object to the whole idea behind doing this. I'm sorry that it's irritating, especially since it slightly is for me as well. I can't express a good argument is all, but that doesn't mean that I'm convinced. If I were actually the only one then I would shut up about it, but there have been a few other replies expressing criticism of this whole proposal, so I don't really feel bad. If you need to get my approval though... you're just not going to get it. Sorry.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for your approval. Actually, what I've continually asked for is rather some proof of your claims of non-consensus other than your non-approval of the proposal. I seem to have my answer, that there is none. Equazcion (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL you could just say "shut up". I don't actually mind (usually, at least).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't tell people to shut up, but I would make a similar polite request that you slightly alter your strategy here. If you want to question the perceived result of this discussion, start actually debating it. Start a new section and say something like "hey, you call this a consensus? here are the reasons it's not." What you're doing now is just impeding other discussions. Do you understand what I'm saying? Equazcion (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

ah, but see, I don't have a strategy! I'm simply replying to what's being said, is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

By strategy I don't necessarily mean a pre-planned route. Regardless of perhaps not intending to do so, you are impeding discussions. The proposal was closed as consensus to deprecate, and people are moving on based on that supposition. Maybe the closing was right and maybe it was wrong, but it was the closing, and people should be allowed to discuss its implications. If you disagree with the closing, then by all means say so. Start a dedicated dialog. But please, stop impeding the other discussions based on your fundamental disapproval of their basis. Equazcion (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How am I "impeding discussion"? I'm not shuffling discussions off to different pages or anything (oh, wait...). Hey, if you just want to be able to do what you want with no dissenting opinions, that's OK by me. All you have to do is say so, and like I said above I'll go ahead and shut up. I provided plenty of thoughts on compromise solutions earlier, and I'm still willing to do so, but no one here is willing to listen so what's the point? Go, accomplish what you want to get done. Wikipedia will still be here when you're done. You'll see what I'm talking about... eventually.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I offered a suggested compromise too, regarding how you could handle your disapproval of the closing. It seems that you will continue doing what you want though. I'm not asking you to shut up, but to compromise by starting a dedicated discussion to express your concerns. Simply telling people "you'll see" isn't helpful either. You keep saying you don't care, but you clearly do, or else you wouldn't keep doing what you're doing. Admit to yourself that you do care, and take some time to form a cohesive argument against the closing decision, and present it once and for all. I know it's easier to just keep informing everyone of your disgust with the decision, but do us the favor of making the extra effort. You might not see how you're impeding discussion, but I'm asking that you trust me there. If you're willing to "shut up" at my request, then surely you'd be willing to meet in the middle too. Equazcion (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

←You asked how you're impeding discussion -- I just thought of a way to describe it. You're impeding discussion because what you're doing amounts to trolling. It might not be intentional (or maybe it is), but you're going around to each discussion and expressing disgust without being willing to actually debate the issues thoughtfully or respond to counter arguments. That's trolling. It's got to stop. Equazcion (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this show up in the Signpost... can I say "I told you so" now? You can't impose your beliefs on others, it's just not going to work here. Several of you don't like these templates, I understand that, but no one gets to impose their opinions on anyone here. I can feel the frusrtation in the more recent discussions, but none of you who support this action should really be surprised at the (lack of an) outcome.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're again not actually saying anything. This is a discussion, which is normally how decisions are made on Wikipedia, and in all cases, not every single Wikipedia user will be a participant. That doesn't mean a select few are trying to impose anything on others. I'm sure this is not a new concept to you. But since you've already said you're either unable or unwilling to explain yourself, I guess that's where we're stuck. Equazcion (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What to do with this

I understand how certain people may only have become aware of this page once the bot started, but this complete restart of the discussion, along with asking everyone to restate their original comments, seems unnecessary. The original discussion could've been re-opened instead, along with the Drilnoth's new clarification (which I think helps). Could we perhaps merge the original proposal discussion and this new RFC together, while moving everything else currently in-between to the talk page? Pretending the whole original discussion didn't happen and starting something completely new based on complaints seems sort of slanted. Equazcion (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that any new big change will just cause more confusion and nothing else, regardless of its merits. Let this settle for a bit. We could add a new, short message to the top of the page, tho, explaining what happened (discussion started, discussion ended, protests came, discussion started again). --Conti|✉ 17:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole notion of archiving the old discussion and asking people to re-post their comments is strange to me. I do not mind that the opponents of this proposal want to review the consensus and want to have their say, so to speak, but a couple of dissenting opinions do not suddenly invalidate the entire previous discussion. Conti is right, making another sudden change is going to cause further confusion, but at this point there seems to be no good way out - the process has been thoroughly bungled and any progress made to this point has been largely invalidated. Shereth 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's just wait for a bit and see if the protests keep coming in. Every future template links to this discussion (including Template:Future sport, whose removal has started the protests, as far as I can see), so I would argue that everyone who still uses these templates in any way should know about this page. We also could advertise the new discussion in some more places (if anyone can think of any that haven't been spammed yet), and once the comments die down, we can think of what to do next. --Conti|✉ 17:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused a mess; the discussion really just needed to move forward. Maybe the "reposting" thing wasn't the right idea, and I certainly don't think that the original comments should be "invalid" or anything, but at the same time the proposal's opposers may think that we're doing that just to stack the odds in our favor. :/ –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a mess but not a disaster. A lot of the vociferousness on show here from people who want to keep the status quo, is because for whatever reason they felt uninvited to (and therefore excluded from) the original debate. When the mistrust, anger and frustration on all sides has died down a bit, a consensus will probably emerge and it can taken from there. I don't like this rediscussion - I held what was clearly a minority view and there was probably consensus against my opinion, which I accept. Rehashing what I wrote before, especially when I am most likely in a losing cause, is not a great feeling! However shutting out a debate now would be premature and only antagonize people. I suspect doing a TfD at the start (this RfC always had a view to discussing deprecation, and therefore their removal from the project) would have saved a lot of problems by signposting the discussion for mainspace-only editors, and I have commented to this effect. Perhaps that is something that can be considered the next time a mass deprecation of templates is discussed. TheGrappler (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean a notice on TfD like it has been done now (twice), or an actual TfD instead of a centralized discussion? If the latter, I disagree with that. I once mass-nominated something for deletion, and about half of the comments on that XfD were "Procedural keep! This is not the right place for such a massive change!", and I imagine it would be the same here. Basically, one half of the people would discuss the issue itself, and the other would discuss whether TfD is the right place for such a discussion. You are right, tho, that a transcluded notice should have been added to the templates earlier, like with any other TfD. I was hoping that advertising the discussion in various places would be enough, but apparently it wasn't. --Conti|✉ 10:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Places to advertise this

As TheGrappler points out above, most people who came here late complained that they didn't notice this discussion for whatever reason. So let's make sure this is advertised properly. Drilnoth already posted comments on various high-traffic pages, but I'm sure there are more out there. :) Should we leave another message at the various WikiProjects? If so, are there any that I missed last time around? Should we leave a message at the enWiki mailing list? Should it be put back on Template:CENT? Any other places? --Conti|✉ 10:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's already on CENT. The mailing list might be a good idea, but I really wonder how many people watch it. WikiProjects have already been notified, IMO, and posting a second time may be annoying to some people. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You could advertise as many places as possible, but unfortunately, in my experience in centralized discussions and large deletion discussions, there will still be some who will complain late because they only monitor their favorite articles on their watchlists ... and absolutely nothing else. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course there'll always be someone who will miss the discussion no matter what, but we can do our best to advertise the discussion as good as we can anyhow. Then again, there's a link to this discussion on every Future-class template currently, and I think it's pretty hard (or near impossible, rather) to miss it when you work with these templates. --Conti|✉ 17:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the mailing list is watched by a fair number of people, and posting a notice there certainly can't hurt. Hmm, are there any WikiProjects that I've missed the last time around? WP:CARS was mentioned, are there any others? --Conti|✉ 17:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do (in future), is add notices to the templates well before any significant discussion and (I'm amazed I have to state this at all:) well before you start deleting things.
A mock procedure:

• I think we should delete these templates because of this, all in favor to initiate discussion?
  • Sure, why not
  • No
  • Okay, good idea
• Based on a tentative majority in favor of deletion, notices have been added to the templates indicating there is now a discussion about potentially deleting them, please now discuss why you think these templates should or should not be deleted.
  • Because of this, and that
  • ...

¦ Reisio (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this should have been done in the first place. I thought the notices at the various places (including WikiProjects and the template's talk pages) would be enough, but it looks like I was wrong about that. My apologies. The notices that were added after the first discussion are still up, tho, so let's hope that now everyone who uses these templates will find out about this discussion. --Conti|✉ 20:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

moved from main page

• Comment For what it's worth, I think a TfD would be a better way of dealing with all potential mass-deprecations of templates in future. It is clear that RfC, CENT and Projects are not good ways of drawing attention to template discussions - many valued editors are "lone wolves of the mainspace", and will only notice what is going on when deletion notices appear on templates they have used in articles. It should have been clear fairly early in the RfC that it was heading into deletion discussion territory (bear in mind it was titled to consider mass-deprecation, so the impetus was originally towards their removal), and that was probably the best time to change forum so that mainspace editors were properly notified. Of course the bonus of an RfC is that it can last longer, draw more input and discuss finetuning rather than deletion (rescoping templates or reducing their use). Would it be disruptive for a controversial mass-TfD to be allowed to run for more than one week? (A downside would be ugly deletion notices hanging around for longer and bugging our readers!) Alternatively, if a one-week TfD returned the consensus "people want a more detailed discussion" and a prescient nominator or closing admin withdrew the nomination and started a wider RfC (clearly advertised in the TfD closure), then at least we'd have been having this wider debate with everyone aboard. If it returned consensus to delete (or more unlikely, keep), it would have resulted in a faster decision on these templates' fate. TheGrappler (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Indeed. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The deprecation notices we've transcluded into all the templates are just as good as TfD notices and do link to this discussion just the same. I posted a notice at TfD about this RfC, as if it were a regular TfD, only telling people to comment here instead. The only difference I can see now is that the TfD page isn't getting updated constantly whwn people comment here, so it might not be staying in people's watchlists like a TfD would normally. We could post a new notice every day to TfD... or simply transclude this page to TfD, the same way TfD pages are. Equazcion (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    • I'm sorry, but posting "deprecation notices" and then immediately running a bot to delete the templates is not remotely the same as filing a normal TfD. According to the now hidden discussion, those notices weren't even suggested/posted until after you all had made up your minds without the input of those that actually use the templates. By the time I noticed them several of the templates had already been deleted. If you can't see how this differs from a normal TfD, then you baffle me. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

      • I'm not sure if you noticed, but the deletion has stopped pending further discussion, which we're attempting to hold now. I know how much fun it can be to complain and stand up against the oppressors, but you already won. It might be time to start constructive discussion, if you're interested in that too. Conti asked you above for suggestions on getting those who use the templates to participate here. Do you have any suggestions? Equazcion (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

        • See Drilnoth's reply below. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Yeah, I'm glad you did what you did, sorry if that wasn't clear. My point is that it would have been better if this had been done originally and before people started to feel "uninvited". TheGrappler (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Replied on the talk page. --Conti|✉ 10:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Could we discuss the mishandling of the original proposal on the talk page, and discuss the proposal itself here? Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)