Template talk:Not done

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why do we need this template on this site? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ?..... Is it causing you or this site any harm ? .... Easy answer to that is no. –Davey2010Talk 11:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not a good answer for Wikivoyage. This site doesn't support the uncontrolled proliferation of templates. See Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates#New MediaWiki template proposals. Many unilaterally introduced templates have been nominated for deletion at Votes for deletion and in fact deleted from the site. So be prepared to argue for the usefulness of this template on Wikivoyage if it it challenged. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan Kekek So why is Done allowed but NotDone isn't ? .... Both templates can and are useful not only here but everywhere else, If someone comes to a talkpage and asks something to be added depending on the issue if it cannot be done then you mark it as such ... (instead of simply saying "Not Done" .... that all being said the template is currently being used on my sandbox anyway (so I can keep track of things), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only being used in your sandbox, that's no problem, in my opinion. I think template "done" is OK, but template "not done" would seem insulting if used by someone else. It's applicable to picture appraisal with a deadline of a week to make requested changes at Quality Image Candidates on Commons, but I don't see how it would be needed here, as a template with wider application. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek - I wouldn't really consider this template to be insulting but then again I'm a Brit so probably have a thicker skin in that respect, I don't really see any issues with this template, Many thanks for your comments, –Davey2010Talk 20:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. And Germans are even more blunt. Just to let you know: In the past, templates that were used only on one person's user page and not otherwise objectionable have been deleted from this site. I didn't support the deletion (the one I remember was template:busy, though I feel sure there have been others), but it did go through Votes for deletion and get deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What actually is the purpose of this template? In what instances would it be used? The documentation doesn't have anything to say about it, as far as I can see. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. It's if you're saying that you're not Yes Done. Yeah, I've never used this or even knew this existed. I'm not sure, though, if that means it has to be deleted. There may or may not be occasional uses for it, as I see. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: this is a reincarnation of a template that was VfD'd in June 2013. Convincing case for a speedy if you ask me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. But is it OK for someone to use a template only on their page? I think we may be more relaxed about that now than we were then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan Kekek, AndreCarrotflower and SelfieCity - If deleted would it be okay if I recreated it but at Template:Davey2010/NotDone for sandbox use only ?, As I said at VfD moving it would leave something like "NotDone moved to "Template:Davey2010/NotDone" and so I'd rather this template go unnoticed incase someone tries to move it back,
I currently edit EN, Commons and Simple and I use both templates on each project so for me it would be a lot easier if I could carry on using it (as it's what I'm used too and have been for 3-5 years, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that discussion needs to take place at vfd now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VFD discussion[edit]

This template was created recently despite having been deleted through this process a few years ago. Because it has already been deleted through VFD, I think it should be deleted, and, if necessary, the deleted page protected or semi-protected from creation. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we more tolerant of templates that are used only on one person's user page at this point than we were in 2013? If not, we might want to not only delete Template:Not done right away but also examine other recently-introduced templates, too, including others by this user, such as Template:Cross. My advice to Davey2010 is to put an explanation of why each template he's introduced is truly important and useful on the talk pages of each template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Consensus changes and please bear in mind that that VfD was 5 years ago, Like I said on the templates talkpage this template would come in handy for when something obviously cannot be done (just like Template:Done comes in handy for something that has been done), Also as noted in the previous discussion this template is used on almost every Wikimedia project here,
The previous arguements aren't compelling and IMHO didn't carry much weight, That being said if others disagree with the creation of this then could I ask that as a second option this is moved to Template:Davey2010/NotDone so that I can continue to use it ?
Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 17:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(I've struck the last bit - If deleted then If it's okay I'll recreate at Template:Davey2010/NotDone where the template would only be used on my sandboxes only - Moving this would leave an "update" and it could mean someone might it back so If disallowed here then I'd rather it be unnoticed if that makes sense. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not currently supporting deletion for Template:Cross; however, I still think that Template:Not done should be deleted because it should per deleted according to the previous VFD discussion. It's pointless to create a template, delete it, and then do the work of creating it again; also, doing so goes against our principle of consensus.
Perhaps we should include in policy that, if a page is voted to be deleted at VFD, that it should not be recreated. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said consensus changes all the time, I'm certainly not dismissing the last VfD but it was 5 years ago (3 years or less and I would've had it deleted myself), There is no work to its creation .... It's literally a copy & paste job,
There's 0 harm in revisiting something that was closed 5 years ago. –Davey2010Talk 16:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me set the record straight here - I'm not the sort of person to go around recreating deleted content and so there is no need to create a policy simply because of me/this VfD - most people that come here would know the whole deletion/recreation thing anyway and like I said if it were 1-3 years ago we wouldn't be here now. –Davey2010Talk 16:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template exists now and it does no harm. What's the point in all these deletion requests for pages that require no maintenance or effort? ARR8 (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being blunt, but what's the point in keeping something that is neither being used nor has much use? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping is the default state of things. What's the point in deleting something that does no harm? On the other hand, having VFD discussions takes time and effort. There's a saying in Russian, roughly translated: if someone mentions something unneeded, one can respond "it's not asking for food," meaning that there's no point in talking about it; just let it be. These pages aren't asking anyone for food. ARR8 (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion of a previously-deleted template would be justified, so maybe it should have just been summarily re-deleted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"what's the point in keeping something that is neither being used nor has much use?" - It's never been used because it's never been created!, It does have use and the template usage on thousands of Wikimedia projects proves my point very well,
Okay let me ask this - What's the difference between Template:Done and Template:Not done ? - Both are for talkpages so what is the difference between this and the other template ? (I had actually thought about this when this VfD was created tbh). –Davey2010Talk 16:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think, in many cases, "not done" is self-explanatory, but saying that something is "done" is useful to know. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not always - Sometimes a Not done template is needed, I'm still not really seeing a compelling reason to delete thus far. –Davey2010Talk 23:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates? The compelling reason needs to be for the existence, beyond "experimental", of this template. To wit:
Before a new MediaWiki template is put into general use it needs to be discussed and accepted as good or preferably best practice. Until such acceptance, new templates will be tagged {{experimental}}, and should not be added to more than one low-visibility article—so not Paris. (If other editors object to that addition, though, expect it to be removed until a consensus is reached.) If new templates fail to gain community support, they will eventually be deleted.
MediaWiki templates have both advantages and disadvantages. Some situations lend themselves to MediaWiki templates; others do not. Each application should discuss the merits and disadvantages of using a MediaWiki template solution as opposed to other alternatives, if any.
If users wish to experiment with templates then they should explain what they are trying to do on the template talk page. That way we can all learn from the effort.
So you need to explain why this template would be "needed" or "best practice". I can't think of a reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that guideline applies to talk page templates (because of the phrase "general use"). Expressing yourself via template on talk pages is no different than expressing yourself by manually inserting a small picture of a red X followed by bold text, so it doesn't really apply (I think) to call this a practice, as it would for other kinds of templates. To be clear, I think this template would never be used in mainspace. If it is, then it would have to be justified. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be a different policy toward templates that are used only on the user page of the user who created or imported them, though in the past, that hasn't been the case. However, they still have to be tagged "experimental", and the reason for the template ("what they are trying to do") should be put on the template's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User pages and talk pages are different creatures. I suppose "general use" covers talk pages, the word being used to differentiate from experimental or personal templates. For talk pages I think consensus is needed as much as in articles, as changing how we are communicating affects how the community works, and starting to use a template is a very strong signal that this is how things are supposed to be done (especially if it makes the users' comments stand out as in this case). I do not see why one would need templates for one's own user pages, but if one wants to have some, or wants to experiment, I think there is no problem as long as the template is kept on a subpage ([[User:Davey2010/Not done]] or similar).
In any case the templates' supposed use on Wikivoyage must be explained in their documentation), and except possibly for personal templates, they must be marked experimental until there is consensus about their use.
For this specific template, if it is introduced to facilitate contributions from users from other Wikimedia projects, I think it should be changed to only show a boldface "Not done". But, are people who do not know Wikivoyage conventions really supposed to say "not done"? I suppose there is no need to make saying that easy for people who have not yet learnt how it is said on Wikivoyage. If however, we want people to use {{done}} (I have not noticed it being common practice), then having the {{not done}} seems logical.
--LPfi (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. All of you need to read the previous Vfd thread on templates "Done" (kept) and "Not done" (deleted). But my point would be, it's fine to note on a talk page that something has been done, but "not done" is just rude on a site with no time limits. Template "not done" is useful on Commons, where there is a 1-week deadline to make improvements to photos nominated for Quality Image before they are declined. Again, there are no such time limits on this site, so if something hasn't been done, either do it yourself, or if you don't have time or lack expertise someone else has, politely post on a talk page that something hasn't been done yet. But don't use a nasty-looking red "X" for "Not done!"
My suggestion is that unless this template will be expressly restricted to Davey2010's user page, we should re-delete it, along with template "cross".Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. My main experience with the template is from the sv-wp page for request for admin actions, where "not done, take it to the talk page first" is a common answer, which I do not find especially rude. If there is no page here where such an answer would be appropriate, then there is no reason to have it (I read the thread, but did not get the context, thanks for clarifying). --LPfi (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree with Ikan Kekek. If something's not done, you don't need a special template to say it. The "Done" template is only marginally useful, and we could all work fine without it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Done is deleted then it would make more sense to keep this, If we delete Done then it makes sense to delete this, There is absolutely no point in keeping one and deleting the other .... makes no sense at all. It's a great shame that we're wanting to delete a universally used template all for the sake of en:WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –Davey2010Talk 19:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason why that redlinks, and that's because Wikipedia policies don't apply here. We are a separate community with separate goals and a separate approach to templates, and you need to respect that instead of trying to subordinate our policies to Wikipedia's. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's redlinked because the :en:WP is conflicting with here, It would work if I used the non-shortcut link (I think) but either way the point still stands - No one has provided any actual reason for deletion other than "It's useless" ..... It genuinely does amaze me that such a widely used Wikimedia template is going to be deleted on the basis of "It's useless" but there are we. –Davey2010Talk 21:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template:Not done and Template:Cross. I laid out the rather thin justification for Template:Done above. It's no harm, indeed marginally useful. These other templates are not at all useful on this site, and no-one has laid out an appropriate use for them here. It's also become clear in this discussion that there is no intention to use these templates only in an experimental way or only on one user's user page. For better or worse, we've long believed on Wikivoyage that unlike Wikipedia, we don't need and don't want loads and loads of templates, only those that are clearly useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've now created Template:Davey2010/NotDone with Template:Davey2010/ndd linking back - I originally had Template:NotDone as the redirect however I then realised that was an issue, ndd means nothing to anyone and although people could find Template:Davey2010/NotDone they'll see the huge notice and thus shouldn't use it, I would prefer this is kept but at the end of the day I have an article to write and so would rather focus and spend my time and energy on that than this,
My actions are by no means a "F you I'm doing as I please" but I've used the ND template on my sandboxes for many many years and it makes life easier to put "{{notdone}}" (or in this case now "{{ndd}}) than it is to write the whole word constantly, It's just what I'm used too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the redirects from mainspace, even if you are now giving us a guarantee that you plan to use these templates only in your sandboxes. Mainspace links would make it easier for someone else to find these templates. I regret giving you a hard time about these, but Wikivoyage has a procedure for dealing with templates and does not welcome willy-nilly template duplication from Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Davey2010/NotDone should be moved to User:Davey2010/NotDone. There is no need for user pages in the template namespace. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - could be useful in keeping track of open (then done) tasks in list of issues in pages such as DotM, cotm or Star Nomination. And see no harm in it. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've reduced the size of the red X to the same size as the green tick in the Done template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — that is why I have crossed out some of my comments above. Having seen the template in use on the COTM page, I can see why it would be useful. For example, a COTM about progress on an article:
Add coordinates Yes Done | Add phone numbers Not done | Check if listings are still in business Not done | Make sure there are no empty sections of the district articles Yes Done
I think it makes for quick, easy viewing of progress on collaborations and similar efforts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: assuming the deletion of the cross (Template:Cross) would not break the Not done template, I still vote to delete that one. Therefore, I support keeping Template:Not done and deleting Template:Cross. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A: go to the template page and on left under Tools is What Links here. At present looks like it is only used in documentation of not done template. But then it is a new template so cannot expect wide usage yet. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am curious is that it Template:Cross should be deleted and Template:Not done kept, per consensus. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]