Active discussions

We could have the same templates in all the Wikimedia projects and they could appear here. To adapt it to concrete sister project (preferly if no necessary) one could create additional templates (which name would be different from the common-meta template name).

The templates would be project-independent. This is, following tradition in Meta, if placed in Wikipedia, it would include an external link to other Wikipedia page, rather than an internal link to this page.

We could use some adaption sub-templates. I.e. one can use the generic name "page" for all the projects. But it can be adapted to every project with concrete name (i.e. Wikipedia is "article", Wiktionary is "definition", Wikinews is "news"...). So, the template would check if the domain is Wikipedia and subs. "page" by "article".

On the other hand, instead of include a link to the equivalent template in all the other sister projects, better a link to the metapedia template. --Mac 10:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Please see discussion on admin alerts over on Wikinews, much of what has been created for this project has been deleted, or listed for deletion, as inappropriate and encylopedic. Currently we would prefer to opt out of this project until such time as those contributing to it have reconciled templates with our specific news-related project goals. --Brian McNeil. 10:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

here, here. Bawolff 23:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

With Rebuttal here and breakdown by use as well. // FrankB 07:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Highly misguided project with an arrogant and offensive rationaleEdit

The efforts of this project have been soundly rejected by at least two Wikimedia Foundation projects: Wikinews and Wiktionary. The templates that it ends up dumping on sibling projects are overcomplex, byzantine, unnecessary, and in many cases wholly inappropriate to the project's goals. The changes to wikt:en:Template:wikispecies made by this project, that actually broke a theretofore working template, are a good case in point. The statement that sibling projects "have not attracted the fairly large and talented population of computer science and engineering trained editors that frequent the hallowed digital halls of Wikipedia and Meta-wiki" is arrogant, offensive to those editors who work on those projects, and downright wrong. I've yet to see any positive benefit for any sibling project to come from this project; and the breakage of several templates on Wiktionary caused by this project and the addition of useless and incorrect templates to Wikinews is evidence that this project is not actually the work of a "population of computer science and engineering trained editors" at all. I strongly recommend that this project be wholly disbanded. Uncle G 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The templates were also deleted (repeatedly) on the English Wikisource. Where they weren't completely useless, existing templates existed already (often much better in both extensibility and simplicity of usage and coding). See, for example, "Templates copied from Wikipedia" and "Further pasting by Wikipedians". I'm very tempted to nominate the whole system for deletion on Meta as well. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you please STOP making this false charge. Yes they were TFD'd while I was away last fall, as they were on Wiktionary. Yes I put a few back when the development was renewed upon my return in Jan-Feb... which is basically a blind spamming operation, and I frankly DIDN'T notice they were missing (I wasn't keeping score, just putting the basic system in place. YOU and others deleted that. Big deal.) and when they were TFD'd, I did a belated defense and stopped (As I tried to point out, t'was done anyway). Don't make it out like TOOLS TEMPLATES are bad things or unsavory, or I was forcing things down people's throats... At best you look ridiculous and just mean the individual tagging templates See also Templates: interwikitmp-grp , WikiPtmp, Commonstmp, Wiktionarytmp, and Metatmp and a few other formatting or typing-aid templates used in the self-documentation. So stop the histronic charge. Frankly, it makes you sound petty, spiteful, waspish, and a bad sport. Until you'd brought it up the third time, I'd a rather different view of you. // FrankB 19:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Wikiquote also has rejected the project, they voted for deletion of similar templates at q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Template:WikiPtmp. On Wikimedia Commons there have beens some small scale oppostion at various places, but no mass deletions (yet). / 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Gee Uncle G, can you come up with a 'error' more recent than last September when the concept itself was in a very early trial state (or I was pretty much brand new at template coding, for all that!)? Sister's are more or less capable of deciding whether they want the same tools as anyone else so we really aren't distributing 'willy-nilly' as charged, the focus of the project is to tag, especially to document clearly (aimed at people that are totally ignorant of templates), and stabilize useful utilities such as like: Template list , lts, las, tl, cat, cl, catlst, and cat also and so forth from endless and unneeded changes— all of which many of us use in a preview screen or talk page to access and check other information, links and so forth as an aid to discussion (Gee- just like those used here in this discussion--imagine using something unuseful to be CLEAR! HARUMPH!!! <G>).

(I'll fix up the 'arrogance' in that statement, though--work on that page has been tardy--and at the time I wrote it several new sisters were looking for template programming expertise.)

The project primarily has two templates: {{interwikitmp-grp}} which links templates and name variants of the same templates as well as properly categorizing such, and template:Interwikicat-grp (edittalklinkshistory) which allows category cross linking to equivalent categories on other sisters.

That those sisters rejected an very crude and early version of the effort is essentially irrelevant the way the whole has evolved, and the local cultures in the three (wiktionary, wikisource and wikiquote) are essentially anti-template in any case. That we learned not to use some formating templates in documentation from their TFD objections has been good for us, and as older projects, they have learned to get by in their own ways.

But if you have a constructive suggestion, We'll be glad to hear it; Identifying equivalent templates, template names, documenting such for lay editors, and writing a handbook guide (eventually) is hardly hurting you older editors who have perfect recall and know all, nor any sister project; tell me what harm the project is causing, or go spend your time crying about something else. Thanks. Cheers! // FrankB 19:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a contructive criticism. Try consulting the projects before imposing your project upon them. At Wikinews we have our own set of templates that we use. We have no interest in a project imposing templates onto us without some form of prior discussion about which will benefit the project. At the end of the day, even if you do create the templates, without a discussion with the community, nobody is going to use them. Use some common sense, please. If a project rejects this project, accept it and move on. You were BOLD in introducing it, but we were also BOLD in rejecting it. --Skenmy 09:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you guys read your own project page:
Templates should not be dropped willy-nilly on a sister project [emphasis mine], no matter how good. The different sister projects have their own unique society and cultures. (some garbled sentences follow) In general, the template should be fully prepared interwiki message compatibility and proper auto-categorization within the categories maintained by this project. A notification of suggested importation, or for such sister's as choose to implement a 30 day trial and speedy-delete criteria, a delivery then such a post should be made on the communities general discussion page (Many use Village Pump, some few have different names making it hard to not check their Help pages to know where to go.)
Anyways, the DR on wikinews has more or less closed (there is one or two pages that were added late), with the vote to delete. That implies we do not want anything else to do with this project, so I would like to ask that no more templates (not that any of these were actually templates, they were more time savers in an extremly complicated system that didn't really do anything useful unless you're at the english wikipedia. Remember back in the day when a template was a template?) be copied to wikinews. Also it has come to my attention that several of these templates were also deleted on September 10, 2006 as being useless and were since recreated and now are being deleted again. Last time I checked recreating deleted content was a big no no and could land you in quite a bit of trouble, so please make sure these don't magically appear again. Bawolff 04:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominations for deletionEdit

I've nominated several of the templates for deletion at Meta:Requests for deletion#Templates_copied_from_en-Wikipedia. I'll do others in batches as I clean up the interdependencies. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:40:14, 02 June 2007 (UTC)

Return to "MP:TSP" page.