Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 11 May 13 >

May 12

[edit]

Template:One source

[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 discussion was keep. A broad consensus exists across keeps and deletes that "a single source is not necessarily a problem". A suggestion was made to change the wording of the template to reflect this, I think that's a fine idea and it can be done or discussed further on the talk page. It looks like it's also widely acknowledged on both sides that there's a potential for misuse; the keeps thought this didn't merit deletion, while some of the deletes thought it did. Given that the large majority of contributors to the discussion want this kept and offer valid reasons, let's use the suggestion brought up by some of the keeps and offer individual coaching to people who misuse it. delldot ∇. 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:One source (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should be deleted because it is not in line with policy and does not help to improve articles.

There is simply no requirement in policy, whether in WP:V or elsewhere, that articles cite more than one source. For many articles, citing one high-quality source is perfectly OK, and the presence of this template encourages the needless tagging of such articles.

The usage instructions say that "a single source is considered less than ideal because a single source may be inaccurate or biased". This is not only unfounded in policy, but also fallacious: if the source is in fact inaccurate or biased, it should be tagged as such in the article using {{verify credibility}} or a similar template; or the article should be nominated for deletion.

But adding another source just to make the tag go away will not improve the article, because the second source may just as well be as inaccurate or biased as the first one. In other words, it is false to assume that the quality of the sourcing is a function of the number of different sources that are being used.  Sandstein  23:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that there are situations when one source is not a problem. In fact the directions for using this template include the phrase "A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used." If an article is notable (see Wikipedia:Notability) then it should have "significant coverage" in outside sources. A single source may not necessarily show this notability. The use of this template is not a dispute of the notability of the article, but of a lack of sources actually cited in the article (ie. the sources most likely exist, but need to be added). I am saying this notability stuff in addition to possibility of biased/inacurate source stuff. Mathman1550 (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if notability is the problem, then the {{notability}} tag is appropriate. If the source in use is biased or inaccurate, then it should be tagged as such, or {{refimprove}} should be used. What I'm saying is that there are several specific and helpful tags for the actual problems an article with one source might have. But just having one source is, in and of itself, not a problem.
The template is not even helpful for finding articles with one source, since it categorizes articles in Category:Articles lacking sources (wrongly, since the one source may be quite enough), thus lumping them together with the zillion articles that are tagged with {{unreferenced}}.  Sandstein  06:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you carefully read what I said, the template is useful for marking articles that need more sources (which should be findable if an article is notable). If we remove onesource and mark those articles with the notability template, people will argue against that template, because the issue is not the notability of the article. The problem with the article is the need for more sources. I would almost (note the almost) argue that if an article has only one source and no other sources could be found anywhere in the world, then the article is not notable and should be deleted or merged.Mathman1550 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again with this fallacious and arrogant insistence that, since Wikipedia insists that all subjects of its articles generally have notability established by non-trivial coverage in two reliable sources, that such coverage must automatically exist somewhere. The real world is not Wikipedia.

No one has engaged Sandstein's point that there is no requirement that articles have more than one source, and there are many exceptions, even in areas supported by notability subpolicies (Consider that Lisa Loeb had a Top 40 hit, and eventually number one, with "Stay (I Missed You)" before she was even signed to a major record label. Wikipedia wasn't around at the time. But if it were, if someone who hadn't gotten a major record deal (which per WP:BAND establishes notability) had a top 40 hit, someone would have doubtless created an article about her and she would have been notable under that same subpolicy by virtue of having had the hit. There might only have been one reliably-sourced music press article about her at the time the single broke the Top 40. Would someone have slapped this template on the article on the grounds that well, there has to be another article out there somewhere? (Eventually, of course, there were, but for purposes of this hypothetical I'm talking about an article created on an artist whose single has just reached #40 who hasn't yet gotten a record deal). In parliamentary democracies it is sometimes the case that people go from non-notability and media obscurity to national legislative elected office overnight. There might be one article about them in a small local paper before the election. Would we insist on a second source then? The situation might change, but maybe they'd be comfortable in backbench obscurity and get no ink or pixels to the next election.

Major League Baseball teams have sometimes called up players from AA to the big leagues. They play one inning, they're notable for having played major-league ball. It would be likely that there would be little coverage of them prior to the callup, and maybe not even afterwards (although, granted, being called up from AA to the majors is notable enough in itself). Maybe one article in the news in the team's city.

My point is that if notability concerns motivate the placement of this template, then there should be a way to reflect a need for more sources in {{notability}}, not a separate template. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can still see this tag as being useful for certain articles, but certainly not all articles with only one source should be tagged as such. Particularly large articles with many facts and figures, or questionable, controversial content, that are solely reliant on a single source, I can understand how an editor would request additional sources for further verification, or perhaps a secondary, more neutral POV. But besides that, this tag is in widespread use and has been in use for a long time and that alone should be enough to just let it be. -- œ™ 04:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in the case of "large articles with many facts and figures, or questionable, controversial content, that are solely reliant on a single source", putting a big fat ugly template into the article is not at all helpful, because the only thing the template does is to scream "THIS ARTICLE HAS ONE SOURCE!" We can see this very well without a template, and as I explained, it is most often not a problem. What is helpful is a talk page message explaining one's objections to the article's sourcing level and indicating which content should be sourced better. The template lends itself to mindless drive-by tagging: less experienced or attentive people assume that just because we have this template, and it is listed in automated tools, it should be applied to all articles with one source. (I've made this nomination because I've experienced this with an article I wrote; see the ensuing discussion.) We simply do not need big fat ugly templates for every conceivable minor problem an article might have. And just because it's been around for a long time does not make it better. There's lot of cruft in Wikipedia that's been around for ages. What we should do is clean it out.  Sandstein  06:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above arguement could be used to justify removing all templates, regardless of their usefullness. The template is designed to be large and intrusive so people can notice it and help to improve the article. And if there is an article with no need for additional citations, the template is easily removable. Mathman1550 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The information that this tag relays to the readers and editors is fairly useful. Prolonged tagging with this eventually helps identify non-notable topics, or on the other hand decent rescue targets. The lousy categorization is a fairly simple technical problem that you can fix without TFD. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per discussion. Probably there should be a "more sources needed" template. There's a difference between tagging an article that has a single source (not always a problem, discussed above) and tagging one that an editor thinks should have more sources. Maybe such a tag already exists; I wouldn't know. --Lou Sander (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that it is pointless to delete one template to make a "More sourced needed" template. I believe that by definition when an editor uses the one source tag it is because the article is lacking in content. Perhaps the verbage under the tag could be more reflective of this. IE: "This article only cites a single source. You can help improve this article by adding additional sources." --tiktok4321(talk) 15:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Sandstein makes some good points about why this template is often misplaced or misleading. However, in those cases I think the more logical solution is just to replace it with {{refimprove}} or a similar template as necessary. There are definitely cases, as Joy points out, where having only one source may be an indication of a more significant problem, in which case it would be a good thing to have this available. That said, I would not be opposed to someone opening up AWB and replacing the majority of the {{onesource}} templates with a more appropriate one. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The {{refimprove}} template seems to imply there either is or should be an inline {{cn}} to a specific fact or quote whereas the {{onesource}} template more generally implies expanding the article to include more references than just the one.My76Strat (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It seems to me {{refimprove}} calls for improved references in general, but if that's the consensus, what about renaming {{onesource}} to {{more sources}} and rewriting it appropriately? I bet we can agree that there are many articles that need more sources, whether they already have one, two or five. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think you need to come up with another name, since that redirects to {{refimprove}}. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am confident there is no policy forbidding us from un-redirecting {{more sources}} if necessary. :-) Of course, I see now that {{more sources}} once had its own text and was redirected to {{refimprove}} after a discussion not unlike this one. I feel more and more as though the answer is to rewrite {{refimprove}} to cover more cases. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Replace with a similar template named "needs more sources" - one source may not be a problem but I'd estimate the majority of articles currently sporting this tag DO need more sources and as such should have SOME notification indicating this deficiency. ɹəəpıɔnı 00:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per everyone else. 124.187.33.221 (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Better than {{notability}} as it can be used on articles which claim notability and where the source supports it but which do not have other sources; better than {{refimprove}} as the one source may well verify all of the text thereby making that tag redundant. Clearly a template of this sort is necessary, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be this one. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When you look at an article that has this tag, there doesn't seem to be a way to access the thoughtful information about its use. It just says that the article has only one source, period, and implies that this is bad. (I'd like to know how you DO access the thoughtful information about its use.) I might like to use this tag, but am unsophisticated about tags, so I'd probably just copy it from an article that includes it. --Lou Sander (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have suggested, having a single source is not necessarily a problem (a fact which is acknowledged at Template:One source#Editorial usage), but in cases where the lone source may be problematic, this template is valuable. I frequently use the template on pages that are somewhat outside my area of expertise, such as articles based solely on a media profile. In such cases I may not be able to judge the reliability of the source, understand the notability of the topic, or verify the content. By adding One source, I invite more knowledgeable editors to help judge these factors. Cnilep (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Nothing in policy pages linked to remotely supports the use of this template or the underlying assumption.

    I have tried to find out where this one came from; I get the feeling it was one of those things that came up in an FAC or something like that. In any event no language requiring the use of multiple sources is, AFAICT, in WP:V, WP:CITE or WP:RS, pages I have been pointed to as supporting the use of this template.

    It is certainly advisable to have more than one (reliable, repeat reliable) source for an article, especially given that WP:N usually requires two to establish notability. But this is not always a realistic expectation. Some editors seem to treat the two-source rule as if it worked backwards as well as forwards: something notable must therefore have more than one source.

    But it doesn't. I have hated this template ever since last summer (I think) when another editor slapped it on St. Paul's (Zion's) Evangelical Lutheran Church, which I had created and had nominated for DYK. We have long accepted that the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and other national and international heritage designations confer notability regardless of whatever else exists as sources to do so. I found other sources for parts of the article not covered by the nomination form ... only to be told by one editor that truly notable article subjects have one source (and as if that wasn't enough, he subsequently suggested that, the sources and a photograph notwithstanding, I hadn't sufficiently proved the church even existed, much less that it was notable).

    Later, to try and please these people, someone else added a whole bunch of marginal sources to this (or was it another?) article, sources which I would have never used.

    So, yes, I've got a personal grudge against the use of this template and the underlying idea. It is bureaucratic in the extreme to assert ipso facto that a single source is not enough. Certainly when there has been no underlying policy discussion reflected in our official policies.

    Any policy, and template arising from that policy, attempting to discourage the use of single sources should consider the quality of the single source (i.e., primary, secondary or whatever) and the likelihood that additional sources are readily available to our editors (I prefer not to cite through from sceondary sources, even if policy strongly encourages it ... it can be a sneaky way to conceal plagiarism). I really don't see how the legitimate issues here can't be addressed by changing the wording of {{refimprove}} or {{primary sources}}. Or at the very least have a policy discussions somewhere other than here to establish the correct use for this misbegotten template. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the implication that an article improvement template needs to be backed up by policy. We have countless other templates for improving articles where there is no policy requirement -- {{incoherent}}, {{overdetailed}} and {{too many photos}} just to name a few.
True enough. What I should have said was that those are backed up by something a bit more explicit than what you quoted ({{overdetailed}}, for instance, is backed up by an essay, when it should be linking to WP:TRIVIA, a well-establsihed guideline) , which is, by the way, not in the page linked to by the template. For some reason it points to WP:IRS, which has nothing on the question. At the very least change the policy link target. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the "single source" issue is backed up by guideline, if not by policy: the general notability guideline says "Multiple sources are generally expected". I am pretty sure that there are more specific notability guidelines that insist on more than one source for marginally notable subjects. Tim Pierce (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability as a general principle requires non-trivial mentions in two reliable sources, yes. But this template, again, fails to distinguish the cases where we would all agree it doesn't, where some other process besides media coverage confers the notability. We have a fair amount of articles on national-level legislators. No one would doubt that that would make the individual notable. Yet there may be no other real sources for biographical information save, say, the legislature's website. Would you tag such an article with this template?

I didn't think so. The problem with this template is that it suggests that the single source is an issue in and of itself rather than in the context of establishing notability, or the reliability of the source or whatever other issue would make a single source undesirable. No one in this debate seems to have entertained the question of whether a multiplicity of sources is desirable for its own sake, which is what this template implies. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Some articles may rely on one high-quality source and be perfectly acceptable articles, but that would be an incorrect use of this template. For an article that relies heavily on a non-neutral or questionable source there's nothing wrong with encouraging extra sources for additional verification. Like similar TfDs, the solution would be to better educate people on its use rather than delete the template altogether. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to encourage the use of extra sources where we have concerns about the one source, then we should express those concerns about the one source directly and explicitly rather than stealthily. As noted in the nom, we have the tools to do this already.

This template, on the other hand, seems to suggest that we want more sources because ... we want more sources. It's "policy" made in the trenches (as it too often is, in and out of Wikipedia, but this is especially egregious). It reminds of when, a few years back, someone quite rightly noted that song articles in particular had a lot of links to their music videos at YouTube, often posted by that site's users in blatant violation of copyright (what else is new?). This not only didn't look good with our copyright policy, it's a potential DMCA violation for each occurrence. So, WP:EL was amended to be stronger and more explicit about not allowing links to copyvio posts, no matter how much they otherwise conformed with the policy. And the original creators of this went around with bots and AWB deleting all such links, mainly to YouTube videos.

However, the usual process of informing people about changes in policy took hold, and soon "no links to copyvio on YouTube" became understood by too many editors as "no links to YouTube, period", with the usual hilarity ensuing. Despite a section explicitly addressing this issue, some editors still think this is policy.

This has not done as much damage, but I think this policy needs to not only go back to the trenches, it needs to be buried in one. Getting rid of this template and finding ways to reword the other templates to address the single-source issue where there are concerns about the reliability of the source or notability of the subject would be a start. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A useful way to notify readers of potential problems with an article. If the template is being used in cases where it shouldn't (the source is very high-quality) or not used in cases where it should (99% of the article from one source, with some other random source thrown in for good measure) those should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and common sense should be applied. The fact that people are using a template wrong doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The fact that people are using a template wrong means there are some problems with it. It seems as though a LOT of people might be using this template wrong. Specifically, they are attaching it to articles just because the articles have only a single source, without thinking further about it. --Lou Sander (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with everything Sandstein says about the improper use of the template. But it is always better that articles have multiple good relevant sources if they are available. It's nowhere near as high a priority as adding the first source, but it's still a good thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template is informative for editors. It is not a direct quote from policy, but who says it should be? It is a helpful tag that addresses the issue; especially for cases when it is more important. When to use the template is editor's responsibility. If it is not suitable, then it should not be used. Issues like wrong categorization and whatnot should not hinder the use of suitable templates. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not a direct quote from policy, but who says it should be?" Most editors, particularly new ones, have this perfectly understandable assumption that a cleanup template has some policy behind it. As it is, the current version of the template doesn't even link to the page with the (weak) single sentence justifying it. And it simply states "you need another source" as if this alone were an end in itself, not the means to justifying notability.

At the very least let us change the wording so it reflects that this not policy and that there are times when a single source is OK. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never objected to change of wording. As I said, it is the responsibility of established editors; this includes phrasing the template so that new editors understand it. In fact, I support rewording and detailing to something like "the particular contents of this article should be supported by more than one source" or something. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, as long as we have some clarity at GNG or wherever about certain things like what I would call imposed notability where the notability does inherit from some particular attached category, where only one source may be available as a practical matter, at least presently, to cover things like heritage listings, membership in a legislative body or sports team at a certain level, rather than notability that arises through the process of covering news of interest. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that not a concern outside of this TFD? If only one source is available than obviously this template should not be used. As long as GNG is satisfied. Sources are there to verify and if only one source can verify than that is fine if the topic is still notable. I think this template is treated too much as as some "policy-break tag" rather than a helpful suggestion towards the more important concerns. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  18:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a concern relevant to this TfD since a number of editors were adding it to articles irrespective of whether only one source was reasonably available, believing that policy required more than one source no matter what because ... well, this template existed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silly editors... :) Can you draw up a proposed new wording so that we can see if anyone objects? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to change {{refimprove}} to read "This article needs additional sources and citations for verification" and use that. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2010 (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:SesameStreetVandal

[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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Really not needed anymore as I have used the sockpuppet template on each of them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2010 (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:Forever Knight

[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 discussion was No consensus to delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Forever Knight (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unnecessary template. Per the standard for a television series, the writers, cast, etc don't belong, and almost entirely read links or links all to the same article. If you remove all the red links, links that don't belong, and links that all go to the same article, you are left with[1] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:POINTY. This editor tried to get me block for unredirecting List of Forever Knight episodes, and is now taking his revenge on CfD and TfD because that failed. Now he's waging war against expansions of all things Forever Knight related. I created this template mere hours ago, it's not even linked yet because I plan on writing most of these article in the next week or so. This is pure stalkerdom. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing "pointy" about it. It is an inappropriate template full of nothing but red links, links not included on a television series template by route, and links all going back to the same two articles. Your continued personal attacks and incivility can be discussed elsewhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As my dif above shows, if you removed the cast members, redlinks, and all the links that are going to the exact same article, you have three links. How is that "many". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... ok, I miscounted two redirects; there are still 4 links though. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see three - main series, movie, and episode list. What is the forth? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the characters has an actual article. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, she has a sentence...sent to AfD. Must have been missed when the main article was done because nothing in the series links to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:52, 15 May 2010 (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:Delsort2

[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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Delsort2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in use, common usage is to put two or more {{Deletion sorting}} notices on the AfD, just see today's AfD log as an example. Also, having two lines of the {{Deletion sorting}} makes it easier recognizable that the article has been included in multiple deletion sorting lists than one line which, on first look, looks the same as if it were included in only one list. Thus, it should be deleted to keep the log pages more consistent and readable. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agree with the nom that common practice is just to do multiple del sort templates, and often the sorts are done by different folks, so this template doesn't seem particularly useful. As of now, it also seems to be mostly unused except for maybe by its creator once or twice. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:31, 14 May 2010 (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:Rfd starter2

[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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfd starter2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See below, the bot now uses {{RfD subpage starter}}. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (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:Rfd starter

[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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfd starter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer in use, the bot uses {{RfD subpage starter}}. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no longer needed.
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:Close Your Eyes

[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 discussion was Delete. Redundant template. – B.hotep •talk• 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Close Your Eyes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigational template that consists entirely of redlinks. Since it only covers a band whose article has been deleted, none of the other links are likely to have articles. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2010 (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:WikiProject Association Football competitions

[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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Association Football competitions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a project assessment banner for a WikiProject that was created without authorisation and has now been deleted. The template is therefore no longer relevant. – PeeJay 07:48, 12 May 2010 (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:WikiProject Association Football competitions sidebar

[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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Association Football competitions sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This sidebar relates to a WikiProject that was created without authorisation from the WikiProject council and has now been deleted. The template is therefore no longer relevant. – PeeJay 07:44, 12 May 2010 (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:Tour de France standings

[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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tour de France standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template now completely replaced by the more general {{Infobox Cycling race report}}. EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2010 (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:Infobox Commune Cambodia

[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 discussion was Delete, should be noncontroversial given the approval of Dr. Blofeld, who is the author and only significant editor. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Commune Cambodia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Limited regional template which is essentially redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. I have created a conversion template, {{Infobox Commune Cambodia/sandbox}}, but it cannot be simply used as a backend due to coordinates conversion problems (e.g., the use of coordinates rather than latd, and longd needed for a pushpin map). I am happy to do the conversion, or to show a proof of concept, but I thought I should check here first. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 12 May 2010 (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:Komárom (Komarno) District

[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 discussion was Delete per this discussion and prior related discussions from May 5, February 25, February 4, and January 26 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Komárom (Komarno) District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Comment You are right here but not with Mures template. There, the latter one was created by Iadrian yu.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Scarcity of tolerant attitude of Iadrian yu towards Hungarians is no reason for deleting a template that contains relevant alternative names.--Nmate (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a encyclopedia not some toll to show certain "felling" one might have toward something, as some Hungarian users use it for promoting Hungarian names in inappropriate places like this template and with that express some form of irredentism over the lands that once made a part of Kingdom of Hungary. This is a unique and redundant template that has no place on wikipedia as a tool to promote some certain minority. Please restrain yourself from personal attacks, all you had to say is something about some user, no valid arguments why should this template exist in this form.iadrian (talk)
  • Delete - Templates should not contain alternative names. Hungarian names are not relevant, in templates, in the English Wikipedia. English names, if available, or Slovak names should be used for places from Slovakia. The alternative name already exists on the place's article. Scooter20 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (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_discussion/Log/2010_May_12&oldid=1088097951"