Forum:Template usage

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Template usage

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5520 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Mnbvcxz recently brought this up in VFD: There are a lot of crappy templates being used on articles. Some of these may be funny on userpages and such, but are bound to mess up any good kind of article. But if it is being used on a userpages, should it be allowed in the main templatespace or should it be kept somewhere in userspace?

On a related note, I am of the opinion that even the useful templates may take up too much space in an article and tend to clutter up pages. The fact that Wikipedia overuses their templates doesn't mean we should do the same. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates, in general suck. Also, your last sentence makes no sense to me. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is Uncyclopedia we're talking about, so nonsense is to be expected. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 19:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "template"? This article is a template. My sig is a template. My user page at the moment consists of nothing but a very big template. Even half of my talk page is a giant template. Templates can be quite fun when used wisely, but not when they are splattered all over the wiki in the form of dull looking boxes. Unless Wikia has somehow dedicated this place as some kind of discount clearance warehouse without telling anyone here, box-type templates are always best avoided. Maybe you should tell the offenders to stop spamming stabby looking boxes all over the place in a nice way? I think that would be a good start. -- The Colonel (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was only talking about the ugly little boxes. If you've tried expanding his definition to the most general sense in an appeal to look clever, you've failed fantastically -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you have just asked for it: Since when have templates and ugly boxes become equal? Not that I am trying to be clever here, but don't you see this is part of the reason why people are spamming these things all over the wiki - that templates are big, coloured boxes that you stick onto a random article for no obvious reasons? I don't think it is really part of human nature to put pointless, coloured labels on random things, so I am pretty sure we have somehow suggested that this is the way to go and people have simply acted it out accordingly. -- The Colonel (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more of a thing where a new user sees a template on an article and goes, 'hey, this was really funny on that one article, I should totally put it on all these other articles so it'll be there, too.' Sort of a canned joke type thing that people are tempted to abuse. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 21:39, Jan 29

I think the problem is more than just that. To put my point into some perspective, let's take the ICU template as an example:

I understand that program developers are not necessarily artists, but you don't really need to attend a fancy art school to see what is wrong in this thing: It's big, pink, aesthetically intrusive and utterly disgusting. It is an abomination begging for the apocalypse, and mankind should be ashamed of themselves for having it created in the first place (and all the other templates that precede it). But, that's exactly the reason why people love spamming this kind of abortions - because they are big, aesthetically intrusive and utterly disgusting. Basically, what we really want is to get the message in that ugly thing and not the ugly thing itself across, so why not instead have something like this:

This article needs more work. See ICU and this article's talk page for details. It will be re-checked on ____ and if not improved will face deletion.

Do you see the difference here? It basically does the same job as its boxy counterpart, but it is far less aesthetically intrusive in an article even when it is placed at the top of it. This will also lower the incentive for creating templates of the boxy fashion as people will begin to notice that they are not the "in" thing anymore. So, in a nutshell, my point is that a little Psychology 101 is kind of needed as well in order to put a stop to this plague, in case you still don't understand what I am trying to say. -- The Colonel (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The ICU template is the worst example you could have used. That template is supposed to be big and ugly. It's a template that says "HEY! This article is a TOTAL PIECE OF SHIT! I fully intend that it be deleted!!" The template cannot possibly ruin those kinds of articles. In fact, by being the only coherent thing on the page, it often improves them. pillow talk 23:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, but I still beg to differ. If anyone wants to improve an article, he or she will do that anyway regardless of what has been put in place. Basically, what is really needed in that kind of situation is to simply say, "Hey, make this article better or it will be deleted within ___ days." What I really see here is the word "deleted" and not the boxy layout accelerating the creative process. I don't think you will agree me any time sooner in this regard, but that's pretty much the conclusion I have reached.

To add to my point, may I mention some of the many ways that ICU template has been... *ah-hem* Effectively used? Call me an old coot but it seems to me that a giant, boxy utility template like this gives nothing but its user a false hope that somehow a bunch of magical little elves will simply appear and turn the article to a masterpiece overnight. That's not the reality tells me about this particular template, and I am pretty sure that's not what the reality tell you about it either. Any monkey with a keyboard can put a boxy table thing that you call a "template" onto a page, and that's pretty much the reason we have so many random boxy templates lying all over the place. This is like a religion or cult of some sort - that having a few loving words in a box stuck onto a page will instantly solve every problem on earth - as I have observed in the past. I was never a big fan of NRV, and now this ICU thing is really nothing but an old, stale idea in a different package. What we really need is people injecting ideas to an article via the discussion page, not a bunch of one-size-fits-all comments written in a very big, stupid box. I am not very keen in pushing too many points in just one discussion, but I think we do seriously need to change the way we think about this wiki. -- The Colonel (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you suggest we change anything? What specifically, should we do? What is the alternative to ICU? MrN 00:19, Jan 30

He's saying that we should ICU this page because it's ugly. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It looked fine before that hideous purple box appeared in the middle of everything. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In a perfect world, hell yeah, I'd love to go into newpages and fix up every lacking page myself, via edits or suggestions. The problem is, there are just too damn many of them, many on subjects I know nothing about. The ICU template is nothing more than a kick in the pants to the article's author if they're paying attention, and a 7 day stay on death row if they aren't. Also, the template does have a spot for the tag-placer's suggestions for improvement(the "fix=" option, I believe), and I think the box is there to keep the text separate from the main article, to avoid confusion. I know what the Col. means about it being ugly, but I guess that's sort of the price you pay for it being more noticeable. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 00:53, Jan 30

I am glad that you asked. (Grrr... Edit conflict! You scumbags...) This is kind of a idea that I have in my head, and I don't really have a name for it. Let's just call it the "Grace-Period Incentive Scheme", shall we?

The "Grace-Period Incentive Scheme"

GPIS is basically deletion immunity of a fixed duration (or a "grace-period") given to an deserving article so that the community as a whole may contribute to its improvement. Durinng this period, the article is listed in Pee Review or a special forum dedicated for this matter so that users in general are notified of its existence and able to offer ideas as to how to make it better. Once the immunity expires, the article is then listed in VFD for deletion, and if it manages to survive the heat of merciless scrutiny therein, it will be given either another grace period (which means the GPIS process will repeat itself once again) or the status of a "stable" article (which means the article is now good enough to live on by itself in the main space). Of course, a new template will also be needed, such as the one that I have suggested earlier, at the top of such an deletion-immued article in order to indicate its status:

This article needs more work. See this article's talk page and its GPIS discussion page for details. It will be re-checked on ____ and if not improved will face deletion.

Given that this template now implies deletion immunity, any user attempting to abuse it (or use it without a good given reason) will have to face the possibility of a very, very long ban (probably for the duration of the immunity proposed). Administrators will also have the rights to revoke deletion immunity granted to any articles including, but not limited to, vanity pages and articles that violates copyright laws and delete them regardless.

That pretty much sums the essence of GPIS, and now it's up to you guys to decide whether it's a good idea or not. -- The Colonel (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a good idea, except for the fact that it entirely relies on a multitude of users to keep it afloat. This reminds me distinctly of the Colonization Project, which, despite (renewed) enthusiasm after it's (re)instatement, rather quickly died out (again). However, whereas Imperial Colonization was for a singe article per week that was already well-established (though crappy), "GPIS" would involve many articles, daily, needing input. Even ignoring the inevitable flood into VFD after a week or so, I just don't see the userbase of Uncyclopedia keeping the system going. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why I am suggesting to disuse one-size-fits-all comments that we often see in utility templates. As I have mentioned, people involved in the GPIS process have the ultimate responsibility to elaborate on why a certain page is worth keeping. If they fail to give a good reason for their decision, it will simply mean a ban-stick treatment. People playing by the rules will not get punished, and there will certainly (or, hopefully) no flood in VFD or anything like that. It simply stops the problem where it begins. -- The Colonel (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thing I'm worried about is user participation. Eventually, I think that the entire program would end up abandoned, with tagged pages simply sitting on "death row" for even longer period of time than happened with ICU. Granted, there would at least be a greater volume of input if the articles were moved through VFD, but I expect that a vast majority will be unanimously deleted and forgotten about. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, I am pretty sure we will also end up with a very, very big ban town. ;) I think the key thing you are missing here is the liability involved with GPIS, and this is exactly what I am counting on. -- The Colonel (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently, after 7 days of not being edited we allow our Admins to make a judgement call regarding if there is any hope for the new article. If there is, they keep it. VFD simply could not handle this. Pee Review also would be swamped by your suggestions. Currently, all articles in ICU can be found here which is linked from the table at the bottom of Uncyclopedia:What_You_Can_Do. MrN 02:07, Jan 30

The page the admins look at is here. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 02:13, Jan 30

And here. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Aww... • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 18:07, Feb 2

And here as well. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting

"GPIS" seems to refer to very little than the ability to ICU an older article, create a category of articles to fix or they'll probably die, semi-automatically create a page where people can comment on the nomination, and then let an admin make a judgment call after 10 days.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. pillow talk 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hyperbole. Maybe he's not that bad after all. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it would serve any real point that ICU does not do already. ICU puts pages in Category:NRV. While you can't comment on the nomination there, you can fix the pages themselves (in seven days instead of ten). A lack of comments there would be the same as a lack of action on ICU'd pages. A comment there would be far less useful than, and I can't stress this enough, making the pages not suck. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Modus for president! ~ 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A Vote for MO is a Vote for the Status Quo! A concerned citizen 20:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The only real point it would serve that ICU does not do already is that it could be done more than seven days after article creation. I mean, that's the "GPIS" suggestion in a nutshell: that we should be able to NRV the pile of shit from 2006 that should have been wiped seven days after creation but that slipped through the cracks instead. pillow talk 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Those get marked with maintenance tags, as per deletion policy, which gives them a month to live and categorizes them. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but what does categorizing do? • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 23:36, Feb 2

Lists them in alphabetical order. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Somehow the "30 day maintenance tag" seems problematic. I mean, look at Jordan Maxon. This is an obvious case of cyberbullying/vanity that should have been deleted within five seconds of hitting the site. Instead, it gets covered with tags and stinks the place up for a month. At some point, we've got to figure out a way to make that not happen. I mean, this particular one might even cause us legal risk, since we obviously noticed it enough to tag it, and yet we're leaving up a page that clearly libels a non-public figure. pillow talk 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So fucking VFD it. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 00:58, Feb 3

And cases like the one you mentioned, QVFD is fine. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:02, 03 Feb 2009

Can we put an article on QVFD even if it's been tagged in some way, and let an admin make the call? Allowing articles to live just because one generous person sees some potential in it does my head in. IronLung 04:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All I see is a redlink. I'm thinking that Hyperbole is making shit up. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll even forgive Spang for removing my post. Just to make it look as if Hyperbole is making stuff up. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 01:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody banned him for that. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody did that alright. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 01:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And that same person also resurrected him. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup. It's a mystery to me as well. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You monster. Actually that happens quite often, when instead of an edit conflict warning showing up, the middle edit is just overwritten. It's possibly because MediaWiki assumes that my edit will be of much greater value, and automatically prefers it to the one it conflicted with. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:26, 03 Feb 2009

It happened to me once when I was poop smithing at VFD causing it to appear like I had removed a nomination which had just been made by ZB. He banned me for 1 day. Oh, how I did laugh. Such fun... MrN 06:29, Feb 3

May I clarify my stance in this, well, debate? The reason I am suggesting GPIS is that, unlike the old NRV or ICU, it gives a unified and reliable treatment for all poorly written articles regardless of when they were penned in the first place. Furthermore, it gives administrators more autocratic power over what can be deleted, because, without GPIS immunity, any article will be judged based on the assumption that the interest of improving it is lacking. Now, hear this, administrators - if you want to push this idea even further, simply enforce GPIS upon anyone requesting to restore a deleted article and make him/her accountable for the action. The essence of GPIS is accountability, and that's what sets it apart from NRV, QVFD, VFD, and ICU.-- The Colonel (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Should templates ever function as canned jokes?

I'm starting to wonder if we should even have "canned joke" templates at all. I fully support sectional templates such as {{Sonic}} {{Biatch}} (except when the create random-assed succession lists have stuff like Filfo Faggins being Duke of Dixie from 7532 b.c. - 6541 b.c.). I also support meaningful warning templates like {{NSFW}} or even {{Bat Fuck Insane}}. However, the purpose of a warning template is to tell the reader they might not want to continue reading.

But, I don't think the "canned jokes" templates work for the simple reason that repeating a joke again and again isn't funny. I'm all more templates being humorous, but they also need to serve some sort of function. A "this article contains Good King Wenceslas" or "Puff the Magic Dragon approves of this article" template really doesn't do anything. --S'r Mnbvcxz 06:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the original idea of them, similarly to the warning templates, was to give a clue about what the content of the article would be, and categorize them appropriately. Seems kinda like they've strayed from that original purpose, though. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 11:49, Feb 3

Something about purpose, you say? We've got our eye on you, Agent Led. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need templates that say what that article is about or its perspective? I mean if someone clicks a link to Pikachu, I serious doubt they are being helped by being told its about a pokemon. On the other hand, when someone sees a {{NSFW}} template, they might decide to hit the back button. --S'r Mnbvcxz 15:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Puff the Magic Dragon Has Nothing to do with This Article

Puff, the magic dragon lived by the sea, And frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called Honah Lee. Which is why he doesn't appear in this article.

Well, except here in this template telling you that he doesn't appear in the article, but other than that, he's too busy frolicking in the autumn mist in Honah Lee to make an appearance here.

---

(I made that one up with a code substitution, but there are ones that silly or worse.)

Generally speaking, by the time someone sees a {{nsfw}} template, it's already far, far too late. pillow talk 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest putting all the NSFW templates at the top of articles as a "policy", any maybe even adding some white space before the NSFW material if needed. I generally dislike using real maintenance/warning templates as joke templates, even if its done in a restrained manner, it sets a bad example for noobs. I know you can't really put NSFW templates at the top of images, but still, it does have a function. --S'r Mnbvcxz 18:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

On a related note

It seems that alot of people are voting keep for stupid "comment" templates on VFD. Granted, these aren't as "cancerous" as perverse maintenance templates or random sectional templates, but they are still cliche ugly clutter. --Mnb'z 05:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missng the point - a lot of these templates are an aspect of what makes the spirit of uncyclopedia, this crazed campeigning is more remincient of Wikipedia content managment and control, I don't see the point on a site whose purpose is humour or humor;) - I agree they should be toned down and you may have noticed a Dark Knight going around and removeing a lot of these from relevent articles (that being a constructive thing to do - these templates if unused can gradually be phased out on VFD). I think the bigger picture is being missed here - you're right templates should not be our content, but maybe like Gerry and SysRq we should spend a little more time on things like colonization, rewrites etc. I often fear that problems are being created rather than being solved. An uncyclopedia 2009 needs to deal with Wikia pirates and deal with the articles themselves, a very holistic approach to each will make the bigger difference to the site. I understand you are trying to help, I have doubts that is the best approach:)--Sycamore (Talk) 08:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of these templates can be bothersome, but if they are indeed cluttering up the article, remove (some of) them from it. I'm sure there are some articles where they can be purposefully used, in a limited amount. If you limit the amount of articles it's used in, you considerably decrease the odds that some n00b is gonna spam it all around. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 08:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)