Category talk:Hatnote templates
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Saqib in topic VfD
VfD edit
This file was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2013 but was kept. The deletion debate is here. Please consider that decision before you re-nominate it.
I don't see the point, though I'm certainly willing to be convinced there is one. LtPowers (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, it does group a few templates which are functionally and visually similar, and keeps them out of Special:UncategorizedTemplates, though that isn't really saying much at this point because there are 344 other uncategorized templates. Would be nice if we cleaned that up. Texugo (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why? What purpose does categorizing templates serve? Isn't that why we have Wikivoyage:Template index? LtPowers (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose that is theoretically what the index page is for, though I would venture a guess that the page is very far from including all existing templates. I certainly can't see any way in which categorizing the templates in a nice orderly manner could possibly be harmful. Texugo (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's another thing to maintain. Yes, the index page is out of date, but that's a result of the indiscriminate creation of templates and the failure (likely unintentional) of template creators to put them on that page. But I should think that this problem is not alleviated by introducing a separate, parallel organization system; rather, it seems that would make it worse. LtPowers (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- If we put even half the things missing on that page, it would be extraordinarily long and unwieldy and of basically little help. I would lean toward renaming that page to something like "common templates", and then neatly categorize and/or delete the rest, as appropriate. After that, the only maintenance needed would be to check Special:Uncategorized templates to see if anything has slipped through. Texugo (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's another thing to maintain. Yes, the index page is out of date, but that's a result of the indiscriminate creation of templates and the failure (likely unintentional) of template creators to put them on that page. But I should think that this problem is not alleviated by introducing a separate, parallel organization system; rather, it seems that would make it worse. LtPowers (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose that is theoretically what the index page is for, though I would venture a guess that the page is very far from including all existing templates. I certainly can't see any way in which categorizing the templates in a nice orderly manner could possibly be harmful. Texugo (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I created this and also Category:Time, date and calendar templates and Category:Listings templates after going to Category:Templates and seeing that only a random set of the templates were categorised. Some of the others seem a bit under used and maybe also not named that well either, for exmaple Category:Templates:Content. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Texugo: it could become a useful overview of these templates. Also, as we're having more and more templates, our template index would be better off using categories as well. Globe-trotter (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- "It might be useful in the future"? That's the best argument we can make in favor? A category doesn't include even half the information necessary for proper template organization. That's why we created the template index in the first place; so we could include examples and explanations. We can't do that with categories. Many templates don't have names that make their purpose obvious, so a simple listing within a category is no use. LtPowers (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --Saqib (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Discussion re-opened for an additional two weeks due to concerns raised at User talk:AndreCarrotflower#Hatnote templates. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The reason why we judge nominated pages as "guilty until proven innocent" is to prevent precisely this kind of haphazard proliferation. If we're going to categorize templates, we should form a consensus to do so -- and not here on the VfD page. It needs to be done on Wikivoyage talk:Categories or Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates, so that it can be implemented systematically, and by consensus. Until then, we need a very strong, policy-based reason to keep this particular category, and no one has yet offered anything beyond "it might be useful". LtPowers (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Wikivoyage:Categories is the current policy guideline for category usage, but there is a note on that page indicating that it needs to be updated. Going solely by the guidance on that page I think a significant number of categories on the site would need to be deleted, so rather than deleting this hatnote category and leaving myriad others that are similar, let's move this discussion to Wikivoyage talk:Categories and try to get the policy page back into a usable state so that we can actually have a basis for making "a very strong, policy-based reason to keep" any particular cagtegory. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Those other categories were created after at least some discussion about why they were needed and what purpose they served. By all means, update the category policy, but I do not think we should start a precedent of "create first, discuss later", which is what we would be setting if we allow this category to stand. LtPowers (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- The point was made that anything nominated for deletion could not be kept unless there was "a very strong, policy-based reason to keep" and that any keep vote that did not directly cite a policy that justified that vote should be ignored, apparently including all "keep" votes made so far in this discussion. Using that criteria, and given that we do not have a up-to-date policy for categories, nearly all of our existing categories should be deleted since there is no policy that justifies keeping most of them. If we're really going to toss out keep votes that don't quote policy, and since this category looks viable to me, then I'm suggesting that rather than deleting this category now we move the discussion to the category talk page so that we can get the policy updated, after which it will be very obvious whether this category really is a deletion candidate. As to "create first, discuss later", "delete first, discuss later" is also not a good precedent. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? And what else could 'guilty until proven innocent' possibly mean? I didn't say that there had to be an explicitly written policy applying to every page that we keep; that's an extrapolation on your part. "Policy-based" can mean agreeing to try something via discussion, or agreeing to implement a category scheme via discussion. I am not aware of any discussion that has taken place regarding this category except right here, and here is not the proper place for that discussion. Since the category was created without consensus, and there is no extant policy that makes the category necessary, I don't see any other way to interpret "guilty until proven innocent" except to say that this category should be deleted. LtPowers (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- The point was made that anything nominated for deletion could not be kept unless there was "a very strong, policy-based reason to keep" and that any keep vote that did not directly cite a policy that justified that vote should be ignored, apparently including all "keep" votes made so far in this discussion. Using that criteria, and given that we do not have a up-to-date policy for categories, nearly all of our existing categories should be deleted since there is no policy that justifies keeping most of them. If we're really going to toss out keep votes that don't quote policy, and since this category looks viable to me, then I'm suggesting that rather than deleting this category now we move the discussion to the category talk page so that we can get the policy updated, after which it will be very obvious whether this category really is a deletion candidate. As to "create first, discuss later", "delete first, discuss later" is also not a good precedent. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Those other categories were created after at least some discussion about why they were needed and what purpose they served. By all means, update the category policy, but I do not think we should start a precedent of "create first, discuss later", which is what we would be setting if we allow this category to stand. LtPowers (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Result: Kept. It's been two weeks now. There was not a single vote in favour of this deletion nomination so I'm going to close this nomination. --Saqib (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)