User:Xiong/tagging
This is a semi-open page for presentation of the arguments against template tagging. Feel free to edit or ask questions, but I reserve the right to preserve intent and to move lengthy and redundant argument to User talk:Xiong/tagging. The purpose of this page is not to fight out the point, but to concentrate in one place all the information needed to educate members interested in the topic. Please assume I have made any unsigned comment. — Xiong熊talk* 10:23, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
- Tagging is the practice of applying a small piece of markup, usually by way of template transclusion, into the markup body of a page, for an administrative purpose. Tags are generally inserted at the very top of a page; it is possible for a page to accumulate two or more tags, in which case the order of precedence may become contentious.
: Tags come in a wide range of styles, forms, and intents; generally, they span the full page width and appear within a box, often colored red or amber, frequently bearing an icon or other image. Tags are distinguished from other elements added to a page in that the tag does not contain content relevant to the topic or function of the page itself; rather, it contains metainformation -- information about the page.
: For instance, the template {{protected}} generates the following tag:
| class="messagebox protected" style="border:2px solid #99B; padding:0px; font-size:0.9em;" |
| valign="top" | Image:Padlock.svg
| This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current [{{fullurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=history}} page version].) |
: Often, tags are used to deprecate or elevate a page's status within the Project. A flag is another name for a tag and flagging is a synonym for tagging.
Position
It is my position that tagging templates, under most circumstances, constitutes vandalism. (See opinion at Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits#Tagging). To summarize in a word my arguments, template tagging destroys instantly a portion of the value of any template; in some cases, it renders the template useless. As this action takes place before process completes or even begins, it is a violation of our core principle of concensus, as prominently stated in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies decided?. That is, the petty policy of whether a given template be permitted to exist must established by process of concensus and not by unilateral act. Obviously, the principle of consensus dominates any minor policy evident at any given time on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion; to the extent that such minor policy conflicts with core principles, it is invalid.
Therefore templates ought not be tagged upon their bodies, and instead upon their corresponding talk pages -- prevailing practice or spurious claims of expedience notwithstanding. — Xiong熊talk* 23:17, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Of course the actual effect of tagging anything with {tfd} or similar negative tag is to accelerate its demise, and it does so with entirely too much efficiency and too little respect for due process.
- Tags deprecate templates out of hand, at once, with no discussion whatever. The psychosocial effect of a tag on a given template varies, but can never be positive.
- Tags damage templates to a greater or lesser degree. Templates, unlike article text, are code -- especially technical templates. In some cases, this damage renders the template immediately unusable -- surely a disincentive to use.
- Tags on templates confuse the reader who may have no idea that templates even exist; even sophisticated users may be unable to determine what has been tagged.
In short the action is prejudicial and just plain wrong.
Internal Links
- Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is both process and workflow
- Transclusion backgrounder: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits
- Another view of transclusion: Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates
- A earlier attempt to make this argument: Template talk:Tfd#Use in template vs. in template talk -- notable as the proponent spoke to the issue long before I joined the project
General argument
Shall {tfd} tags be placed on the template page itself, or on the template's Talk page?
It's common practice to place similar tags on article pages themselves. If, for example, the page on Water skiing is up for VfD (because, say, waterskiing is "non-notable"), then this is something we all want to see and know about, right away. The {{vfd}} tag appears in only one place: at the top of Water skiing.
It has been demonstrated clearly that this is a mistake when applied to templates. Templates are used on many pages, and if {{tfd}} is attached to the template itself, it is replicated on every instance of its use, disrupting pages which have nothing to do with the nomination for deletion. This use of {tfd}, when intentional, is actually hostile: it begs the question, anticipates the outcome of debate, by trashing every appearance of the template, possibly rendering it useless. Thus, it's an attempt to bypass the TfD process itself and usurp consensus.
There are times, I agree, that {tfd} may appear on a template page. When the template to be deleted is a series box, {tfd} should be inserted not only on the template page, but within the series box. This makes it clear what is being considered for deletion; and brings the matter to the attention of those most likely to care to discuss it.
{{tl|tfd}}
The actual text of the {tfd} tag just makes the matter worse. It has gone through several versions, but always represents the most recent editor's limited conception of what sort of template might be so tagged.
Some templates generate no text at all, only formatting markup; others have no visible effect whatever. It is even possible to create a template that inserts nothing but a standard HTML comment. Technically advanced templates may act over an utterly unanticpated range; {tfd} will always confuse and distract.
We need not tag templates, debate them, and remove them with a blare of trumpets; nor must we do so under shade of night. It's perfectly possible that we tag templates on their Talk pages, and make a polite notice to affected users.
This is not nearly so hard or burdensome as it appears. I see which kinds of templates are nominated frequently. They fall into four general groups:
- Foolish or vanity templates, such as mine own {{tl|01}}:
It's all just zeros and ones!.
:Only the creator is likely ever to make any defense of such, and can probably be reasoned with directly, leading to immediate speedy of the template in question and sparing us the drudgery of nomination, tagging, debate, request for admin attention, and logging.
- "Polish steam locomotive engineer family tree" templates: monstrosities that loom larger on the hundreds of pages on which they appear than any actual page content. These must be dragged through TfD and might discover some support from Polish steam locomotive enthusiasts. These single-minded users haunt Polish steam locomotive pages to the exclusion of all else, and if we notice the deletion on one Talk page within the set -- the template page itself being the natural place for this -- it will show up on every Polish engineer's watchlist and -- with the proper edit summary -- appear as a great red flag. Nobody will be left out; if only one or two Polish engineers take note, they will sound the alarm and every Polish engineer in the project will caucus at length before descending on TfD in mass.
- "Rain Man" templates, created by obsessive-compulsive semi-autistics (like me) for the purpose of categorizing different shapes of pinto beans, or marking articles as {{tl|rainforest-endangered-wildlife-film-star-stub}}s. You may rest assured that the slightest dummy edit to one of their babies will startle them from their dazed counting and re-counting of places within the project where split infinitives fester. I cannot promise they will deign to speak to us, but they will read the notice and have the opportunity to do so.
- "Frankenstein's Kitbash" templates, which I illustrate (vainly, for which I apologize) again from my own stable: {{tl|divbox}} and {{tl|doctl}}. If they work, these highly technical templates may be of great interest to many users; if not, nobody will weep over their deletion. The trouble is that placing a tag -- any additional code at all -- within the body of such templates may cause them to break -- in unexpected ways, perhaps. Even if they do not fail outright, their usability is so immediately degraded as to suggest that they were broken before nomination: fait accompli. Or the tag inappropriately points to something that has little to do with the template itself, sowing confusion.
Technical example
Since it was a certain user's adamant insistence on tagging {divbox} that moved me to this debate, an example of this template is appropriate. For all examples, the same source code insertion of {divbox} is assumed:
sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod...}}
This is the way the template is meant to be used by a user to do something on a substantive page -- possibly a template, possibly a sidebar, with or without the subst: atom. The only thing that varies among these examples is how {divbox} is tagged for deletion.
(The actual source of these examples was created by substitution.)
----
Here is a use of the template as it is intended; obviously, it will render the same way whether it is tagged on its Talk page or not:
----
But adding {tfd} to Template:Divbox forces every instance to appear thus:
Perhaps {divbox} stinks and should be carted off with the rest of the rubbish, but the text within the {tfd} tag appears to point to "Lorem ipsum...". FWIW, I copied and pasted that text; it came from no template. Lorem ipsum is not up for deletion. And while you may say "that's obvious", it is only obvious if you have already been over the battleground. A naive user who sees this notice will naturally think {tfd} applies to the contents of the box, not the box itself, which is all the nominated template generates. Further, it damages the appearance, which -- since a colored box is all about appearance anyway -- is again tantamount to strangling the baby in the cradle and fait accompli.
----
Still, this is not the worst unintended -- or maliciously intended -- consequence possible when fooling with technical templates. {divbox} does some tricky things to make life easier for humans. In particular, I want an easy way for a user to be able to choose colors for a box; that's harder than it looks, because both box border and box background must be set individually, and one cannot be specified as a tint of the other. Besides, that might not be wise, even if technically feasible -- I think one of the most successful styles is "amber", which is a light yellow background and a brown border. I actually expect some user to demand that all boxes, of whatever background color, be bordered in black. Nor will I interfere with the change. I built that robustness into the model.
On another level, I want to be sure that users at a slightly higher level of technical competency can create new styles and extend the set, not be limited by the first dozen things that popped into my head. So, all the style information is contained in one or another subtemplate. But I don't want to create a template named "blue" or "navy"; that's too general. The subtemplates have names like {{tl|divstylenavy}} and the calling template, divbox, supplies the first, pseudo-namespacing part of the subtemplate name, allowing users to merely type the style code word "navy".
Now, we should all be glad that a certain user was too lazy to go and tag the template bodies of all 13 subtemplates. If he had, then every call to {divbox} -- no matter where it appeared -- would lead to this:
background-color: #AADBE0; border: 1px solid #00477B; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em">
Clearly, this is a sort of government-sanctioned vandalism, utterly destroying any usefulness the template might have had. There is no need for a vote; let's just tie the creator to a stake and burn him in public square. As I said, I'm glad he didn't do it.
----
This last case is difficult to explain and I thank sincerely anyone who has read this far. I hope you will all agree than anyone bold enough to create Frankenstein Kitbash-type technical templates is able to take care of himself; you do not need to tag his templates in order to ensure he comes to the table for discussion of the deletion. You might drop him a line on his Talk page; he'll drag in all the friends he needs or wants.
Meanwhile, though, since the template has not been deleted; since templates, as humans and dogs, are innocent until proven guilty; it is criminal to destroy them to prove a point. To force this premature destruction upon anyone wishing to nominate a questionable template is clerk-mind, the hum of the worker bees. To do so in order to deprecate a comment on a debate page -- which is what led us here -- well, it is beyond my understanding why anyone else would tolerate this, much less endorse it. — — Xiong熊talk* 11:23, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
(Edited
— Xiong熊talk* 06:50, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
— Xiong熊talk* 10:23, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
)