Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 31 September 2 >

September 1

[edit]


Template:Citations missing (3rd nomination)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, but that does not preclude ongoing discussion about whether and how to merge or alter the templates at their talk pages. delldot ∇. 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citations missing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There was a previous 2008 "no consensus" TfD on this template, and earlier "keep" one in 2006.

Redundant and terribly confusing, as it is trying to address two completely different problems at the same time (or one, or the other, depending upon the specific usage of the template, but which of the three meanings is intended cannot be specified with any of the template's parameters). The lack of reference citations, and the lack of formatting of existing reference citations as footnotes are essentially unrelated issues (one a matter of policy, one a matter of growing but by no means complete consensus about the value of a style guideline's non-insistent recommendation that Cite.php's footnoting system be used.). It's first purpose is served by {{Refimprove}}/{{Unreferenced}} and its second, contradictory, one is served by {{Morefootnotes}}/{{Nofootnotes}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Updated for clarity (new material marked with <ins>) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and redirect to {{Refimprove}} Merge to {{Morefootnotes}} (as nominator). Since this template can be used to flag both matters of policy (WP:V issues) and matters of guideline-advised footnote formatting (or even both at the same time), and policy trumps guidelines (and lack of sources is far more important and serious than how they are formatted), the safest option is to redirect it to a WP:V template, not a WP:CITE one. {{Refimprove}} {{Morefootnotes}} (a better redir/merge target, as majority use of {{Citations missing}} is in this direction, not WP:V issues) also supports all of {{Citations missing}}'s parameters (among others not present in the latter). It could go to {{Unreferenced}} or something else more dire than {{Refimprove}}, but and nothing about {{Citations missing}} implies that the article has no citations. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Updated to better reflect debate history (new material marked with <ins>, deletions with <del>) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very week keep: something about refimprove always struck me as "everything's referenced, but there need to be more references - because just one or two references isn't enough". I mean, that is kind of what it says, "[the article] needs additional citations". If we were to tweak the wording in refimprove I'd probably say keep, although then we have the problem of people not having a template that says "this article needs more than one source to cite everything". And really, is it so bad that we have two relatively similar problems combined in one template? I mean it's not like people are going to look at the template and say "How in the world can I figure out whether this article is missing citations or whether it doesn't use footnotes". So alas, for now I would say week keep. I would say if it was deleted we should change unreferenced to read "This article has unreferenced statements" - and then redirect this template to that.--danielfolsom 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: Isn't this the 3rd nomination? 1, 2 and this is 3?--danielfolsom 01:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, I didn't notice the 2006 one (though I don't think the earlier 2008 one mentioned it either). Updated the note up above to account for it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long comment on the TFD history so far: On a reading of the original nomination, it almost certainly should have been closed as "no consensus" due to just outright voting. The original TFD's main "keep" argument notes that "it explicitly requests footnotes whereas [{{unreferenced}}] does not" (i.e. the original purpose of this template was to request Cite.php inline citations, not flag a lack of sources, making it presently redundant with {{Morefootnotes}}. Meanwhile {{Citations missing}} has had its purpose scope creeped to overlap with that of {{Refimprove}} / {{Unreferenced}}, and its deployment rate has been steadily declining.
I re-propose merge to {{Morefootnotes}} instead (nom updated, above). The chief April 2008 "keep" rationale was "{{Citations missing}} is used for articles that just need more footnotes", and explicitly recognized the redundancy, suggesting that {{Refimprove}} be deleted as younger (but also noting it as more popular). I guess that means the real debate is which of these templates to delete-and-redir with bot cleanup. "{{Refimprove}} is popular partly because a bunch of templates were merged there, and SmackBot canonicalises template names when it dates them. It would be trivial to merge the two" (Apr. '08 TFD).
So: I honestly don't care much which template survives as long as a) it isn't redundant (much less doubly so!) and b) the name and documentation make it clear what its purpose is and is not (so I lean toward {{Morefootnotes}}). Regardless, there are clearly too many of these tags. From same TFD (#2): "there is no reason to break something that is working" – but it isn't, as the purpose of the template has bifurcated, making even accurate categorization impossible: "As it currently stands, {{citations missing}} is too vague to determine whether it is a request for more references or more footnotes, and different people use it in different situations." (Apr. '08 again). Sorry to quote so much, but I think it's important that the history be examined in detail, given than many of the templates under discussion did not even exist in May 2006 (TFD #1). Times have changed.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reference deniers ("are not very important") seem to be in abeyance (or just waiting). Makes it easier to suggest a way out. I suggest a new scheme of naming consistent with other areas. This may reduce the number as well. ref0 = no references at all. ref1 = has bibliography/external references but no in-line footnotes. ref2 = has all the above plus a couple of inline footnotes but not nearly enough. This puts this sort of thing on a scalar and maybe some can be merged.Student7 (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's somewhat interesting (though too nitpicky for implementation; something more like refs=n (none) or refs=y (some), defaulting to n might work - who wants to actually count them? What is "enough", in what context for what kind and class of article? Etc.). If your 3-value system were actually deployed, mingling WP:V and WP:CITE, I would next TFD all of the refs cleanup tags but the one with this feature, since they would then all be redundant. Seems problematic. We have separate templates because they don't mingle two wholly different concepts. This one here is up for TFD precisely because it does hopelessly muddle them, in a way confusing to readers, editors, even subtypes of editors like categorization cleaner-uppers (how I came to file this TFD, actually).
  • But all this is rather non-responsive to this TFD. To restate it: This template is (admittedly – even by its own defenders) redundant. This means A) It gets merged and redirected to one of them. B) One of the others gets merged and redirected to it (the apparent preference of its defenders earlier this year, but template usage levels have significantly changed since then). C) Rewrite it to clearly serve a distinct purpose. D) One of them (this or another) simply gets deleted. Option D obviously isn't practical, so let's strike it. Some would proffer an option E: Nothing is wrong, leave everything alone. But I've already shown that something is wrong, and this has not been addressed, ergo strike E as well. Three options left, A, B and C. Pick one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, this is a tricky one. I like it. :) --Candlewicke (Talk) 01:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge – Keep per my above comments, and per the fact that a merge here would be inaccurate, given that Citations missing has (arguably mainly) been used when articles have unsourced statements, and not when inline citations aren't used. I am still of the belief that if this template must be removed, Template:unreferenced should be reworded (why do we need one template to say the article has no citations, and another to say the article is missing citations? The "no citations" one is excessively specific) and this template should be redirected to it. That being said, at some point we need to move beyond the fact that this template exists. I mean nominating it 6 months after a failed nomination is a little excessive.--danielfolsom 21:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's nothing unusual about another TFD when a prior one closes with "no consensus" and the issues raised were not addressed. Nothing has changed since then. We still have a redundant template (either this one or the other) and we still have a template (this one) that is confusing and breaks the ability to accurately categorize articles for a specific kind of cleanup. I really don't care which template gets merged, but one of them should, and if this one is kept its dual purpose needs to be cleaned up to a specific purpose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

CONCACAF Gold Cup templates

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

The result of the debate was keep --delldot ∇. 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mexico Squad 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mexico Squad 2005 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mexico Squad 2003 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mexico Squad 2002 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These competitions aren't notable and most of the links are either stub articles or are red links. BlueRed 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, pending WP:AFD: Article subject notability is not determined by WP:TFD; that is WP:AFD's purpose. That most of the articles are stubs is not particularly relevant here; the vast majority of WP articles began as stubs. Furthermore, only Template:Mexico Squad 2002 CONCACAF Gold Cup has any redlinks at all. The fact that all the more recent (i.e. relevant) ones are fully bluelinked, coupled with several missing years, strongly suggests that these materials are still under development. And, will ya look at that, only one of these templates was more than a few hours old when it was TFD-tagged. If AFD deletes the articles, then by all means the templates go too, of course. PS: Only one major contributor was notified of this TFD (I notified the other one just now). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is longstanding consensus at WP:FOOTY to keep these kinds of squad navigational templates for World Cup rosters only. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Actually there was a very recent discussion at WP:FOOTY. Current consensus is to keep these for all World Cup and Top level Continental Cups due to notability and ease of navigation. I'll try and dig up the discussion, it was started after a similar TfD Paul  Bradbury 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The longstanding convention that only World Cup templates should be used was only overturned based on a single TfD during Euro 2008 itself, which I suspect heavily influenced the result. Hopefully now we will return to the pre-summer arrangement, and get rid of them all again. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThen please state your argument for deleting them, what Wikipedia policy do they violate that requires their removal? The original request states that this is not a notable competition, that is not true as it meets Wikipedia guidlines on notability. So is there another reason? Paul  Bradbury 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that some players will end up having a ridiculous number of templates; Samuel Eto'o already qualifies for 8 (2 WC, 4 ACNs, 1 Olympics and 1 Confederations Cup), and will probably have a few more before he retires. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Observations: That was not responsive to Pbradbury's request. Also, that's not a rationale for deleting this template, but rather a rationale for creating a new solution to the too-many-football-boxes problem, such as a collapsible meta-navbox to contain all of them, the way that {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} encloses WikiProject talk page banners, perhaps. If something isn't quite working as we'd like, the solution is generally to fix it, not destroy it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The soultion to large numbers of templates already exists and is in use on the Osvaldo Ardiles article and many others. EP 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong comment: I'll try to speak a little more plainly this time that I make the same point: You are not going to fill anyone with goodwill toward to keeping this template by coming in and saying "don't delete our template, it's important; delete their template instead!" I can't believe two of you pulled this in a row here. Yeesh. I thought this was Wikipedia. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Histfact

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

The result of the debate was redirect to {{fact}} (I see no reason to delete first since there's nothing harmful in the history). Since Ludwigs2's input was 'per nom' I'm assuming s/he's ok with the nom's suggestion of a redir. delldot ∇. 01:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Histfact (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant (it's pretty close to a WP:CSD#T3, as a functional duplicate of {{facts}} and others). Also appears, in its confused and confusing documentation, to be drawing distinctions not recognized by Wikipedia:Verifiability and related guidelines and policies (namely that there is some special difference between "general" facts and facts with regard to the history or historical environment of "general" facts). Its three examples of usage can easily be handled with better-established templates (examples below). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to {{fact}} (as nominator). Examples of why the template it not needed, drawn from its own documentation. First is given the intended use of {{histfact}}, then how it is usually done.
  • "started by Lord Champs in 2001 and enhanced two years later{{histfact}}"
"started by Lord Champs in 2001 and enhanced two years later{{facts}}"
  • "the organization was founded in 1978 when the natural disasters had increased{{histfact}}"
"the organization was founded in 1978 when the natural disasters had increased{{facts}}"
or
"the organization was founded in 1978{{fact}} when the natural disasters had increased{{fact}}"
if for some reason it is expected that two different sources will be needed.
  • "these Celtic tribes survived more than one invasion{{histfact}}"
"these Celtic tribes survived more than one invasion{{fact}}{{clarifyme|reason=Which ones?}}"
Also, it was not proposed at (nor even known to) WP:WikiProject Inline Templates. While this is not "quasi-required" by consensus yet the way it is with stub tags and WP:WPSS, it is suggestive that the author(s) of the template may not have been aware of the extent to which there are already many such templates, many of them merged after creations of near-duplicates like this, and that the boiled-down remainder already cover virtually all inline dispute-tagging needs adequately (including this one). As the examples above show, {{histfact}} doesn't really tell the reader/editor anything newly more specific or useful, and if particular needs with regard to "historical" sourcing exist, they can best be indicated with particular use of other tags (or better yet by plain English on the talk page).
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Australian of the Year Award

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

The result of the debate was delete. delldot ∇. 22:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian of the Year Award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used, replaced with standard templates. Bazj (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Succession box one to two U.S. Rep to Senator

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

The result of the debate was delete. delldot ∇. 23:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box one to two U.S. Rep to Senator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used, replaced with standard templates. Was created for the situation where someone sat in House, then Senate, succeeding the same person in both seats. Now that we have header strap lines its continued use would mean either the House seat sits under a Senate strap line or vice-versa. Bazj (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the impossibility of it becomes apparent if you try to place a Senate strapline which will run the whole width of the boxes :
U.S. Senate
over the senate boxes, without breaking up the predecessor box (because that's the whole point to this template) :
U.S. House of Representatives

{{Succession box one to two U.S. Rep to Senator}}

Preceded by Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Rhode Island's 2nd congressional district
1885 		Succeeded by
United States Senator (Class 2) from Rhode Island
1889–1895 		Succeeded by
The predecessor logically fits under BOTH headers, but with this template (which I guess was written before headers were widespread) that's an impossibility. There is no fix, and since it's been replaced everywhere it was used, why would anybody try? Bazj (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep this succession box can still be used for overlapping successions that fall under the same colored catgeories listed above. While these boxes are rarely used... they do have potential application for use... juyst because something is rarly used does not mean it should be deleted.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardcoded for House and Senate which don't fit under the same header. Bazj (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Succession box two to one U.S. Rep to Senator

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

The result of the debate was delete. delldot ∇. 23:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box two to one U.S. Rep to Senator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used, replaced with standard templates. Was created for the situation where someone sat in House, then Senate, and was succeeded by the same person in both seats. Now that we have header strap lines its continued use would mean either the House seat sits under a Senate strap line or vice-versa. See Marcus A. Smith and Virgil Chapman for the two instances it was used. Bazj (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. House of Representatives
Japanese royalty
U.S. Senate
Church of England titles
--Bazj (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this succession box can still be used for overlapping successions that fall under the same colored catgeories listed above. While these boxes are rarely used... they do have potential application for use... juyst because something is rarly used does not mean it should be deleted.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template hardcodes the first item as a House term, and the second as a Senate term. It's not a general-purpose two-to-one box. It will always result in the subject's last term in the House sitting under a Senate header, or his first Senate term sitting under a House header. Bazj (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Born age

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

The result of the debate was delete. I'm not redirecting it, but other editors are welcome to do so if it's agreed that a redirect would be good. --delldot ∇. 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Born age (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unused. Many other templates are in place that do pretty much the same thing. --- RockMFR 02:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_1&oldid=1142563439"