Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 18

< September 17	September 19 >

September 18

Template:Overcoloured

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 discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Mention would also be removed from Wikipedia:Colours. Beland (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. This should be unused most of the time, but deployed when needed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An appropriate cleanup template for articles that don't conform to the relevent guideline. PC78 (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2009 (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.

Luxembourg Infoboxes

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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Luxembourg canton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) = only 12 transclusions, with no more envisaged.

Template:Infobox Luxembourg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) = unused

Each redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of {{Infobox Luxembourg}} (as it provides no unique functionality and is unused anyway). Oppose deletion of {{Infobox Luxembourg canton}} (as a canton is not a "settlement").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:25, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etc. - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is exactly the principle I disagree with (I elaborated on this point when commenting other similar nominations). Besides, documentation is not a policy or a guideline; it's not even a good representative of a consensus.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:18, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    - The "settlement" template is in fact used on articles for higher-level administrative divisions, so it isn't just a claim in the documentation. If the consensus in this particular case is that it is not a good substitute for {{Infobox Luxembourg canton}}, then that should come out in the discussion I'm typing into right now. That's why a notice for this TfD appears next to every transclusion of the affected templates. Since the "it's not a settlement" argument is not at all specific to this template, I don't think it should be a significant consideration. If there is something about this template that the generic one can't provide, then that would be another issue entirely. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate - nothing that can't be handled by {{Infobox settlement}}, so no reason for a separate template to fulfil the same function. Censure editors arguing over the semantics of the name "settlement". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate for obvious reasons cited above. Himalayan 12:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}, which can be and is used for articles about various administrative levels. I'm not seeing anything here that the more general template can't do. --RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all my comments on related 1st-level regional infobox Tfds.DCmacnut<> 19:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not trying to make a point I have many valid views on this and other Tfds on why these types of templates should be kept, at the very least as redirects to infobox settlement. They shouldn't be deleted indiscriminately. You're the one trying to make a WP:POINT by your repeated nominations and refusal to WP:AGF and take this discussion out of Tfd and to the appropriate template/project pages where it belongs. You have been asked repeatedly to stop nominating Tfds, yet you continue to do so. All of these Tfds violate WP:POINT.DCmacnut<> 21:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I agree that deleting these templates may offend a particular project, community, or user so before these were taken, there should have been consultations and discussions. Clandestine and indiscriminate deletions isn't they way to do it.--23prootie (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There has been no "clandestine and indiscriminate deletion"; each proposal as been advertised by tagging the relevant template and available here for anyone to participate; as you have just done. Neither of the two templates discussed here is tagged as belonging to any project; nor do any projects link to them. However, in the light of your comment, perhaps you can explain your recent, similar TfD nominations (1, 2, 3), and show where you did as you suggest? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - FWIW, there's no policy against decisions that "may offend a particular project, community or user". However, we do tend to lean in favour of decisions that improve the end product. Consistency is good for the readers. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:37, 24 September 2009 (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:Reference necessary

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 discussion was No consensus. NW (Talk) 02:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reference necessary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

creates an ugly yellow highlighting of pages which detracts from the articles 124.168.221.202 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think the idea has merit (I could have used something allowing to tag a whole paragraph as unreferenced on many occasions), but the implementation truly leaves much to be desired. Would be willing to consider retaining this template if it is re-worked in a way which is still useful but not so distracting.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:26, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. I can see it's usefulness, perhaps in extreme cases such as content in BLP's that's not libelous but needs immediate referencing. And it is already in use in a fair amount of articles and likely deliberately placed. However it really is rather unsightly and distracting. And highlighting a certain paragraph, especially in bright yellow which really makes it stand out, may be misunderstood by readers as emphasizing a particular POV thereby giving that paragraph undue weight. I think limited use would be best. -- œ ^™ 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick look through several instances of its use suggests that it is not used in the way suggested in its documentation. The documentation suggests that it is good for tagging longer passages where it would not be clear that a regular {{Citation needed}} tag refers to more than just the sentence or phrase it was next to. But in practice it seems to be used more frequently on single sentences or short phrases, where a "traditional" cite tag would work just fine. Haven't made up my mind on deletion, but at a minimum either the documentation should be updated to reflect actual practice, or a lot of uses of this should be replaced with {{Citation needed}}. --RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it is sometimes "not used in the way suggested in its documentation" is precisely that it's useful for both cases: long passages where you don't want to have to tag every sentence with a {{fact}} tag (or just tag it at the end and leave it unclear as to what scope you're actually requesting citations for), as well as fragments in the middle of otherwise sourced sentences, when the material afterwards and before is already sourced. cab (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever it was used for or is currently used for I can't find any good reason to highlight text like this in an article. Garion96 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the creator of the template, I can honestly say that when I first created it, the highlighting wasn't there. I propose then that we delete the highlighting (I don't care for it either) but keep the template itself. obento musubi 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But then that won't make it much different from {{Citation needed}}?.. maybe we should just merge the two.. integrate this template's features into {{Citation needed}} and have highlighting as an optional parameter? -- œ ^™ 01:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the colour highlighting. Still don't like it but it is less ghastly then before. Garion96 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I figured the whole point is to be unsightly and visually distinguish unsourced content. I find that to be a feature, not a problem. Unsourced content detracts from articles far more than highlighting does. Another advantage over {{Citation needed}} is that it wraps the text which needs a citation --- more efficient than putting a tag at the end of every sentence, and useful if an entire sentence is sourced except for one fact in the middle of it, for example. cab (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/replace with (or redirect to) {{fact}}; underlining sentences in an article is not the way to point out that they may be dubious. (An outside visitor is extremely unlikely to guess that this is the intended meaning.) If a particular sentence urgently needs sourcing, it can be discussed on the talk page or at an appropriate project, or removed altogether. (WP:SOFIXIT all the way.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have removed the inclusion of the template deletion notice (by wrapping it in "noinclude"), because they broke every article the template was used in. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just switched in {{Tfd-tiny}} instead, so that a notification will appear in the articles, but won't be quite so huge as the one that appears with {{Tfd}}. --RL0919 (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't simply redirect to {{fact}}, as their parameter formats are different. This template wraps the text; if you redirect it, the text will disappear, and undoubtedly a bot or an AWB user will stumble along and accidentally remove the text because it's become an "unused parameter". So at minimum, a merge is required. cab (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with cab, when I first came across this template - I was pleased. Statements requiring citations detract from the otherwise valuable content of Wikipedia. The uglyness could speed the resolution of the underlying problem with the article. If the highlight itself is ugly, perhaps the highlight should be removed and the font colour changed to something like grey - to visually indicate that it is less trustworthy than text in black. Dheppens (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge this example of template proliferation into {{citation needed}}.
It has substantially similar intent as {{citation needed}}, with a parameter to focus attention on the particular sentences or claims in question. As such, it is redundant. This is the template equivalent to a WP:Content forking, and best avoided by having the appropriate discussion on the talk pages of {{tl|citation needed} to bring the much-used {{citation needed}} template into agreement with the author's desires for this template. This template has less than 100 uses at this time, and it would not take that much effort during a merger to move its uses over to a modified {{citation needed}}.-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks disgusting. — Jake Wartenberg 04:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the cn won't get a cite then why would a block of yellow highlight. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP This is a very useful template. This template has broader application than {{Cn}}. {{Cn}} is applicable only when one sentence needs citation. But, what does one do when, for example, three contiguous sentences need citation? Apply {{Cn}} to each of the three? If that section of the article is large, yet otherwise well-cited, it would be inappropriate to apply {{Refimprovesect}} to the whole section. Thus, {{Reference necessary}} fills the gap between {{Cn}} and {{Refimprovesect}}. It is not replaceable by either of {{Cn}} or {{Refimprovesect}}.

I also believe that the primary criticisms of {{Reference necessary}} are specious and resolvable. Namely,

1. Appearance: This template used to have a significantly paler color until an eager editor, in good faith and being bold, changed it to a highlighter yellow that is truly an eyesore. The look of the template’s application can always be changed, always be toned down. Better that we should improve its appearance than discard it.

2. Usage: Some of the complaints are how the template is not used correctly. That is a function of documentation. Many templates on Wikipedia are not used correctly, because they have insufficient “when to use” guidelines. Just because it is not used correctly, is no reason to discard it. Better that we should improve its documentation than discard it.

If a reprieve, a stay of execution, could be granted for this template, which fills a gap between {{Cn}} and {{Refimprovesect}}, I would willingly, and gladly, try to improve both its appearance and its documentation and re-present it for review on its talk page. Would such an outcome be possible? Discarding this gap-filling template because of appearance and misuse — two matters that can be rectified with time and patience — would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Spike (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to {{Attribution needed}} as it seems the only real difference between the two, based on their docs, is that {{Reference necessary}} highlights the particular text requiring attribution. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT There’s absolutely no documentation at {{Attribution needed}}. I wouldn’t even know how to begin to use it. Moreover, is it a wrapper? That is, can it identify more than one sentence needing verifiable references/citations? {{Attribution needed}} would seem a much better analogue to {{Cn}} than to {{Reference necessary}}. In fact, since {{Attribution needed}} seems like a virtual template synonym for {{Cn}}, perhaps {{Attribution needed}} should be a candidate for deletion. Spike (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think we should be highlighting text in this manner. It's supposed to indicate text which may be unreliable, but it just has the effect of bolding it and bringing it to further attention, which seems counterproductive. Robofish (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most people here seem to have missed the point. Clearly, the template's appearance is not a good reason for deletion, since it can be changed at any time. As for its usefulness: Please note that the regular {{Citation needed}} template may lead to ambiguity as to the actual word(s) or sentence(s) that are being challenged; the purpose of {{reference necessary}} is precisely to eliminate the ambiguity, not to emphasize the disputed statements. Indeed, changing the font color to gray instead of highlighting the text sounds like a great idea. I would also like to point out that this template was borrowed from the French and Italian wikipedias, where it's pretty popular. The best solution probably would be to incorporate this template's defining feature into {{Citation needed}}. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 00:43, 26 September 2009 (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:Art of ancient Egypt

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Art of ancient Egypt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links dont point where they suppose to do, unused. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and misleading. --RL0919 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2009 (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:UF-hcal-person

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UF-hcal-person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and rightly so: people are not events. The functionality to which it refers has been removed form all (known) infoboxes in which it occurred. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm having trouble making sense of what this is supposed to be for, since there are no current uses and no example in the documentation. How was it used previously? --RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the more sensible {{UF-hcard-person}}, from which it was adapted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem at all useful. --RL0919 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only uses I could consider for this are, while amusing, not very appropriate for an encyclopedia or polite company. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:26, 23 September 2009 (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:Exp

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and there are other templates that provide similar/better functionality. — SkyLined (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's flagged for speedy deletion, so a TfD was probably unnecessary, but if it does come to that, delete as unused and redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2009 (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:SimpleNuclide2/test

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 discussion was delete per WP:CSD#G7. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SimpleNuclide2/test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and this should have been in my sandbox in the first place. — SkyLined (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2009 (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.