Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject template sharing and related structures

==WikiProject template sharing and related structures==

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Fix the problems

MfD may or may not have been the best venue for this, since the nomination seems to suggest that the goal seems mostly to be to refactor this scheme/system's "backend". But, per WP:BURO, let's not be overly concerned about the specific venue, this one is not that far afield for such a discussion (especially since deletion may indeed be involved).

The consensus below (including the nominator) is that there is at least some of this which is salvagable, and that the "problems" seem to be the (currently mired) implementation, not the intended goal(s).

In short, mark any project pages historical, and fix/refactor/merge/redirect/delete/etc. templates and categories, as appropriate to the cleanup/fix. - jc37 16:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

----

;Full list of pages under discussion

After encountering Wikipedia:WikiProject template sharing and the structures it has created, I have spent a considerable time trying to understand the interlocking mess of templates and categories it has created here and elsewhere. I have not succeeded; the project pages are actively confusing, its documentation utterly incomprehensible, its templates use some of the most convoluted and archaic code I have ever seen on wikimedia. Almost every template is broken to some degree; they use a spectacular range of deprecated, hardcoded, unappealing styles that may port well to sister projects, but which look godawful next to our local templates. The vast majority of the pages above serve only to organise (and in many cases perpetuate) the work of the WikiProject itself; that work is now finished here (project talk page has not been edited since June 2007), at meta (never even got off the ground, only edit in Feb 07), Commons (April 07), wiktionary (April 07), etc etc. As best I can tell, the only editor who has been active on the project in the last year is Fabartus; none of the pages listed above have been substantially edited within the 30-day length of the recentchanges table.

The mess of categories, templates, code and structure listed above (probably not a complete list, I will work on finding more pages) contains a few gems, useful links to sister project pages. It should not be unilaterally deleted; doing so would cause a huge amount of disruption and the loss of those few useful links. What I am proposing is a mandate to 'wind up' this project, dismantle its structures, and separate from the rubble the few pages and links that deserve to be integrated into our local content. All the pages above should be deleted, redirected, or marked as historical, as appropriate. Happy‑melon 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment There's a lot to look into here, so I'm not entirely sure where I stand. I'd say mark as historical. Most templates break over time anyways, as software updates, and templates that the other templates might use get changed. But I might not be understanding the full concern here (hence, only a comment). -- Ned Scott 02:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
:Indeed, it's a hugely (and entirely unnecessarily) complicated system that mainly serves to perpetuate itself. Unravelling it without damaging other things is going to be a delicate business, but it's making such a mess of various places already (check out :Category:Structure, for instance, I mean WTF?!?) that it really does need to be cleaned up. I think marking the main project pages as historical would be sensible, as you say, but the outlying structures have a wide-ranging, and extremely negative, effect on the 'middle levels' of en.wiki. Happy‑melon 00:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. In the absense of any objection, I support User:Happy-melon's proposal to clean and tidy up the mess, using redirects, marking as historical, and deletion where there is nothing salvageable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep and tag as {{tlx|historical}}. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:It is the intention of the proposal that pages to which {{tlx|historical}} is suited (eg Wikipedia:WikiProject template sharing and its talk page) receive that mark in preference to deletion. The main issue is the vast collection of templates and categories that the project has spawned; it is not customary for us to mark such pages as historical. I don't think this issue can be resolved by just tagging everything in sight with the historical template. What are your views on the deletion of these structures, which contain no useful discussion history but which are making mayhem on a large number of pages? Happy‑melon 17:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:Tagging historical would mean deactivating the WikiProject and its category and template structure, which cannot be done for reasons mentioned in the nomination. -- Suntag ☼ 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I came across this discussion via an avenue that's unusual for me (i.e. I didn't just find it here where I usually hang out), I found it via a page on another project that linked to meta that linked to the project that was tagged for deletion. A quick check of some of the templates tagged for deletion as part of this project shows that they are used a very large number of template pages to show what other projects the same templates are used on. I think this project needs definite clean up and revamping - there is too much junk. But wholesale deletion is a very bad idea. Many of the templates could be combined and with work they could also feed into cats re what projects are NOT yet using the tagged template. For example, I have found several projects lately that didn't yet have the SUL user templates; however, it would be nice to be able to have a project working on coordinating the creation of identical templates for all projects and developing procedures for GFDL compliance (transwiki protocol doesn't fit with templates). The particular template I am talking about has very complex documentation when it comes to moving it between projects. It seems this project should be coordinating such things. Now I know inactivity is part of the issue here, but inactivity is not the same as historicity. There is no reason to reinvent this project when interest can be found just because this one is currently dormant. I recommend we keep it and work on a comprehensive reworking of the entire scheme. I for one would be willing to work on making this project useful. I don't really see the problem with letting this remain as is, or disabling any really troublesome parts until it can be reworked. Let's kill this discussion and reconvene on the project's talk page to fix it. Ping me on my talk page or e-mail me if I don't respond immediately.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
:As I said above, I fully agree with you that "wholesale deletion" is not appropriate for this collection of structures. There is as you point out a lot that is useful and valid, and some of the end results of this project's work are extremely beneficial. We need a template that looks like {{tlx|interwikitmp-grp}} to co-ordinate interwiki links. But try explaining to me how this system as a whole functions, and I will bow down and worship if you can manage it. The backend of this system is so needlessly complicated, so deliberately obscure, and in many cases so actively disruptive (see :Category:Interwiki templates varying on other sister projects - what does that look like in your browser?) as to warrant carefull deconstruction, in my opinion. You say yourself "this project needs definite clean up and revamping"; I can deduce no possible use for a good 95% of the structures it has created. A template containing sisterproject links, yes. A project to maintain those links, yes. A structure sufficiently complicated as to require a dozen documentation pages like this? I think not. The worthy goal of increasing sisterproject collaboration and resource sharing is, IMO, best facilitated by dredging off the silt that this project has mired itself in, getting back down to earth in terms of actual priorities, and starting afresh with a structure that more than one person wikimedia-wide can understand. In summary, I don't think our views are contradictory: where the project goes after we remove the mire of obfuscation that it's drawn around itself is outside the scope of this MfD, and I wish it all the best. Happy‑melon 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Support a mandate for Happy-melon to 'wind up' Wikipedia:WikiProject template sharing, dismantle its structures, and separate from the rubble the few pages and links that deserve to be integrated into Wikipedia's local content. If Happy-melon is willing to take on such a challenge, s/he should be supported. This may be a good way to get a solid and efficient foundation for sharing content. Once Happy-melon implements a comprehensive reworking of the entire scheme, then others could modify Happy-melon's work as needed. This position is consistent with Keep but fix (but where Happy-melon is the one mandated to fix), so I think it consistent with the above Keep and Support positions. Also, please note there is no objection to Happy-melon fixing the WikiProject and its structure, so I think consensus agrees with Happy-melon's request above. -- Suntag ☼ 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:*Further on my support - Given the numerous pages tagged by Happy-melon to give notice of this MfD, that this MfD has been open for 20 days (!), and the few people actually showing up to comment, there seems to be little interest one way or another in the WikiProject or its' templates and categories. This further supports giving Happy-melon the requested mandate. Other than Happy-melon and Doug, who really is going to step forward and fix this problem? -- Suntag ☼ 12:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.