Forum:TC:Template:Doom (second nomination)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Template:Doom (second nomination)
This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus. JangFett (Talk) 02:23, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Template:Doom ([[Talk:Template:Doom|talk]] - history - links - logs)

This is one of the earliest maintenance/warning templates on the wiki, dating back to the days when articles on major topics from the films and EU were incomplete Wikipedia copies. Recent forum discussions, notably Forum:SH:Maintenance Template Standardization, have reminded me how useless this template seems to me now. It's usually put on an article along with more specific messages, such as Template:Cleanup or Template:Update. I don't think it's needed anymore, now that we have all of these more specific messages to editors.

This discussion should also result in the deletion of Category:We're Doomed! if the results empty it out. The template was previously discussed here. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:28, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Meh, I'm ok with it. I've always sort of viewed "Doom" as a more intense version of "Cleanup." That is to say, "this article not only needs cleanup work, but it's an enormous pile of elephant dung. Tread lightly, reader." And so forth. I think it still has a purpose. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:30, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Keep and possibly rewrite the template's text? I'll be fine with it. If not, then per Tope. JangFett (Talk) 12:25, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Per me. --Fe Nite (talk) 21:50, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Per Tope on it being a stronger version of "Cleanup." Also, compare the text. "Cleanup" says the following: "This article or section needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of article quality." "Doom" says this: "This article covers an essential topic and is in need of major additions and/or work." There are several key differences that make these separate and needful templates in their own right. First, there is the fact that Cleanup says "This article or section," while "Doom" says "This article covers an essential topic" (emphasis added). "Cleanup" is used to simply say that a regular article or section needs some cleaning. "Doom," on the other hand, is used on "essential" topics. Also, "Cleanup" says that the article or section "needs to be cleaned up." However, "Doom" says that the article needs "major addition and/or work." It needs more than a cleanup; it needs major work. Indeed, these two templates are designed to do two very different tasks, and they shouldn't be deleted.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 13:35, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Instead of deleting the template itself, we should delete it from the pages it has been placed on. By improving those pages themselves. Trip391 (talk) 15:38, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
    • Trip, if it weren't impossible and extremely weird, I would kiss you right now. Fe Nite (talk) 19:01, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Per Trip and Fe Nite. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 19:07, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
  7. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 19:30, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Agreed. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 01:58, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Cumulonimbus Cloud (ℳeeting ℛoom) 15:28, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Per Trip Supreme Emperor (talk) 23:02, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Delete

  1. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:28, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Just kill it. If we ever decide to finally go through with the multiple issues idea, that can and should be created as a separate template at a different title. This template conveys a different message and should not simply be converted into a completely different template, which would cause confusion when viewing old article revisions. —MJ— Training Room 03:11, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  3. We really need to get on the multiple issues thing. Menkooroo (talk) 03:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Per MJ.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 03:29, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Most of the articles this applies to have cleanup templates anyway, which are basically the same thing. Commander Code-8 You lost the game! 07:24, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
    Despite this template being more severe than regular old cleanup, it is much less specific. It basically says the article needs major work but it doesn't say what that work is. Is it a rewrite of certain sections? More sources? Better images? I'd be curious to see how someone tackled an article with this template on it. It's not easy to see, for example, how the Han Solo article is "doomed." I'm sure it needs work, but as an editor I'd have no idea where to start. Let's just delete this article and use more specific templates like Verify or Citation—Sageleader (talk) 22:17, July 15, 2013 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Fewer than 50 mainspace edits -- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:28, July 15, 2013 (UTC))

Discussion

I'd also be happy with turning {{Doom}} into a redirect to another template, or using it for a "multiple issues" template which would save space on some articles. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:28, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

  • I kind of feel that this vote is a bit premature for exactly this reason. Until we have a better idea of what direction the template standardization will take, we don't know whether we need a "multiple issues" template or not. jSarek (talk) 23:52, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps. On the other hand, the issue has come up three times in the forums this year without any concrete action taken. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:13, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • A couple of responses to points above: This TC only affects the "Doom" template: the other maintenance templates would be unchanged. The "Cleanup" template would probably be used more as a replacement. As for this template being more specific than the cleanup template, I'm not sure that subjectively deciding that an article's topic is "essential" has encouraged cleanup efforts. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:31, July 8, 2013 (UTC)