Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 21

< September 20	September 22 >

September 21

Template:Infobox INJAZ

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) 01:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox INJAZ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and would be better off placed directly into article instead of as a template that would only be used at most once. WOSlinker (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:45, 22 September 2011 (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 College football priority

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) 00:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject College football priority (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not in use. Priority for college football articles ought to be assigned via Template:WikiProject College football. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template is no longer used. Okay to speedy by me. I created it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and creator input. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 02:50, 22 September 2011 (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:Hcref

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 after replacement Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used on 34 pages. Similar to Scref, but adds a hover link to show the citation. Nice feature, but it only works for the very few uses of this template in an article and requires that the hover text be included in the template markup. The script User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/Footnote popups adds this feature to all Cite references and compliant templates. This template can be replaced by standard footnotes. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we want popup citations then we should incorporate them into the primary cite.php system, as stated. Less minor citation template variations means greater consistency and easier editing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:59, 27 September 2011 (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:Parks and Recreation episode

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) 01:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parks and Recreation episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

How is this useful? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a scheme where we would append this suffix in an article. Makes for a useless template. (Unused as well)Curb Chain (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Using this template would be more work than spelling out the intended link manually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Unused after two years, template markup is longer than standard wikilink markup. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 02:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It uses more typing to use the template. →Σ τ c. 05:48, 23 September 2011 (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:Too many references

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) 01:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Too many references (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a dangerous road that we don't want to go down. I would rather have too many good references than not enough, and the more specific the citation the better. While loads of *irrelevant* citations are a bad thing, there's already a template for that at Template:Verify sources. Too many good citations is not a problem, and we should be encouraging the use of more citations, not less. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god no. By the admission of the creator's initial summary this is nothing but a protest vote, and the community hasn't taken it up. Amazed it's lasted this long, especially seeing that the creator was indef blocked shortly afterwards for further inappropriate edits. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, many references are indeed not perfect for readability, but that's not what they're about. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The issue this template is meant to address is real and all too common, and a cleanup template is a way to point out that having 4351 in the lede does not improve the reliability or verifiability of an article.--LK (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you actually saying that a large number of relevant citations is a *bad* thing? I suggest you reconsider your statement, considering that a maintenance tag exists at {{Verify sources}} which discusses a large number of irrelevant sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - I had initially closed this as delete, since the arguments presented by SchuminWeb, Chris Cunningham (thumperward), and The Evil IP address were very compelling. However, a request was made to reopen this for one more week, and I see no harm in more discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any value in having this template available as it seems to send the wrong message--like Chris Cunningham and SchuminWeb said, it's pretty difficult to have too many good sources. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 02:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it may not be our usual problem, it is possible to have too many references. Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta was denied FA, largely on that ground. More commonly, a cascade of eight or nine references for a single point is usually POV_pushing; those eight or nine (or some of them) support the point; everybody else opposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be adapted to specify redundant references? EW_{_i}kist^Talk 01:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that refspam has indeed been used as a tool for POV-pushing (specifically, giving undue emphasis to a particular statement by making it look incredibly authoritative), it is not at all clear that this is a specific cleanup operation such that it requires its own tag. If it truly were to be useful it should be retitled {{redundant references}} and given text such as "this article contains references which duplicate the content of existing citations" or the like. But that's awfully nuanced for a cleanup tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the current title is misleading. It should be something like Template:Too many inline citations. The tag seems to be warning about too many inline citations, not the total amount of references that appears in the References section per se. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no such thing as "too many references". The more sources used in an article, the more likely it is to be reliable. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, in the very rare case that there actually are too many references, then there must be redundant references, and it can be simply discussed on the talk page. I don't see this happening frequently enough to require a maintenance template. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2011 (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:Scrubmouse

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 move to userspace Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's supposed to be funny, but it's more nonsense than humor. It's only used by 5 users (1 blocked), and the creator and last editor are both blocked, so it doesn't look like it will be improved anytime soon. It also could be confusing. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 01:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete patent nonsense. How could the mouse cleaning criteria be on WP:MOS?Curb Chain (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it is nonsense. That's the point. I don't see why this needs to be nominated for deletion just because some people do not see the humor in it. Obviously at least a few people got it because it has been used. In what way is it so harmful to Wikipedia that it needs to be permanently deleted? EW_{_i}kist^Talk 19:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we don't have a proliferation of nonsense pages.Curb Chain (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not useful to the encyclopedia. Move to user space if desired. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfication is absolutely the right move for these humour templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. A move seems appropriate. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 21:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

userfy, this humor template is only used in userspace, so move to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2011 (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.