Template talk:tobediscussed

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Rationale

I think the current wording of {{tobedeleted}} gives the wrong impression, in particular because a lot of the time we really should be having a discussion about whether to merge rather than delete outright. I hereby propose this new wording. In addition to {{tobedeleted}}, this template would replace {{talktobedeleted}}, {{merge}}, and {{redirect}}, and would serve as a backup to {{delete}}. — It's dot com 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This definately looks like a better way to go. The only thing that's not working for me is the lack of a cute image. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a better idea to me. Deleting should be the last resort. Spyrox6
For pete's sake, It's Dot Com, after you put this much work into it, this better bethe new wording. Geez. friggin' workaholic. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 01:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Great jorb! Most improved. Ding! Loafing 22:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Project" and "Project talk": is that an actual namespace? And if so, why does search not allow it as a searchable namespace? If not, how does this work then? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Project and Project talk are generic names for HRWiki and HRWiki talk. For example: Project:Da Basement. — It's dot com 03:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
As I've been here a while and didn't know that, and I assume I'm not unique, should the instructions be reworded? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, why not. — It's dot com 04:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one. I like the clarity that having different templates tailored to different actions provides. That is, if you see Zubs and Coach B at the top of an article, you immediately know that the page has been proposed to be merged with another article (and which one). Same thing with the other templates. Just by glancing at the image, you get a quick summary of what's being proposed to do to the article.

On the other hand, I do like the emphasis this new template takes off deletion. That is, I can see that it may be discouraging to users who create a page to have the DELETED! picture quickly put at the top of their page! This softens the blow a little, and also it is easier to implement (only one template to remember).

So, I'm not completely excited by the idea, although perhaps (as silly as this sounds) I might be more so if there were a catchy image in the template. For now, I'm remaining neutral. Trey56 04:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The images are great, of course, but they shouldn't get in the way of the real issue, which is that we are ultimately trying to answer just one question: whether an article should exist separately. Every other question (whether to delete, merge, redirect) depends on the answer to the first question. Sometimes it's clear what the outcome of the discussion should be, but often it's not, and trying to decide at the beginning of the discussion whether to use {{tobedeleted}} or {{merge}} is both unnecessary and prejudicial, and, in the case of deletion often leads to a lot of hurt feelings when people panic that "their" article is about to be erased into oblivion, when usually that's not the case. There's also no reason to have to switch (potentially back and forth) between deletion and merging templates based on the way the discussion is going. One template should be enough to cover it. Furthermore, all of the discussion should be concentrated in one category so that it's easier to see what all is up for discussion. We don't have the volume of articles up for deletion, redirection, and merging to really justify having several categories. — It's dot com 05:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right — I think it's one of those things I'll like after I get used to it. You make a good point that we often end up switching/adding templates after the discussion leads in a different direction away from the original template. I've seen articles with {{tbd}}, {{merge}}, and {{move}}, which is pretty ridiculous. I'm definitely leaning toward support of this. Trey56 05:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

See also the question here about whether this new wording would also replace {{move}}. — It's dot com 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Having one template to subsume all the ones mentioned above and also {{move}} is an excellent idea. 1) All of these actions are ambigously intertwined until a decision is made, 2) in all cases editors will need to check Talk for the specifics anyway, and 3) it is much easier for editors to remember one template to use instead of six. BryanCTC 02:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I very much like the idea. The new template has much less bias towards deletion, and it will hopefully be easier to use. I'm all for reducing the numbers of templates to chose from. Loafing 22:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image ideas

I threw together a couple mock-ups of ideas for icons — don't pay too much attention to the background colors, etc. This is just intended to get the ball rolling and maybe spark some ideas about what might make a good icon for this template (if any). Trey56 07:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the content of this page should not be a separate article on the wiki. If you have an opinion about whether this page or its content should be moved or removed, please comment on the talk page.
It has been suggested that the content of this page should not be a separate article on the wiki. If you have an opinion about whether this page or its content should be moved or removed, please comment on the talk page.

I like those images, but what do they really say? The top one especially seems like an image for its own sake. Perhaps the templates could stand on their own, without an image. — It's dot com 20:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not enthusiastic about them either — they're both supposed to feature characters whose fate is unresolved, like the articles that would get this template, but I don't think they're elemental enough. It's hard to find something simultaneously relevant, clever, and simple; without something like this, I agree that it would better to go without an image. Trey56 20:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one I'll throw out there. Trey56 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Strong Mad Processing icon.png It has been suggested that the content of this page should not be a separate article on the wiki. If you have an opinion about whether this page or its content should be moved or removed, please comment on the talk page.

That's not bad at all. Would it only go on the Main namespace version? — It's dot com 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question — at very least, an image of that size shouldn't go on the Talk page version — it's too short. Trey56 22:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the Strong Mad image one best. -- Tom 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Me too. It made me smile :-) Loafing 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I implemented brother Graw Mad on the main namespace version. Whaddaya think? — It's dot com 00:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I like it... I'll take a gander at Homestar Runner's Hat periodically and see if I get used to it... Trey56 05:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To be discussed?

If this proposal is accepted, should it be moved to {{tobediscussed}}? My understanding is that one of the points of the template is to take the emphasis off of deletion. Note that we could still have {{tbd}} be a shortcut to the other name, it would just stand for something else. Trey56 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of my overall plan. — It's dot com 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Most evil overlords don't disclose their ambitions until the penultimate scene. So I think it's safe to assume that It's dot com is not an evil overlord trying to take us over. He would never make such a blunder so far from the climatic resolution. I think we should go with it.BryanCTC 03:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Validity Issues

There are issues with the HTML validity of this template. I don't know if anyone is capable of fixing this problem, but there are numerous, and they relate to this template. The HTML Validator claims that there are unordered list (</ul>) tags inside the talk portion of the template. If this can't be fixed, then oh well. Just thought I'd point it out.· · T2|Things 13:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Phlip. The rest of the problems seem overly picky; it shouldn't particularly matter if the ID "cleanup-rewrite" is already defined.· · T2|Things 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Version for Merge Discussions?

To avoid confusion (a discussion to merge General and Fraulein Pom Pom and Pom Pom's Hypothetical Family turned into a discussion of killing off the General and his wife) and neglecence (a discussion to merge Disconnected Telephones and Foods Used as Phones received no response because {{mergefrom}} templates were used), I think the template should be able to be altered for merge discussions. I was thinking something like, {{tobediscussed|merge=2nd article}}. In the actual article, it would appear as something like this:

Image:Strong Mad Processing icon.png It has been suggested that the content of this page be merged with 2nd article. If you have an opinion about whether this page or its content should be moved, please comment on the talk page.
Is this variation necessary? BBG 04:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we used to have separate templates for merge discussions, deletion discussions, etc., but we switched to the current, single template because it's often the case that a discussion originally proposing one fate turns into a discussion about an entirely different fate (e.g., perhaps somebody proposes that two articles be merged, and the course of the discussion leads in the direction of outright deleting one of them). This isn't a bad thing; often the best course of action is only discovered by a discussion in which several options are proposed.
So, I think that the single template is fine without creating a variation; there may be some cases where merging seems like the only obvious choice, but even there, people can just go to the talk page to find out exactly what other users are proposing. Trey56 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk to be deleted tags

Is there any reason why the Templates that are put on talk pages equal the same thing as {{delete}} does? Should we change it? (A good example would be File Talk:otherdays.png). Thoughts? MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools