Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 6 August 8 >

August 7

[edit]

Template:Infobox JR West Station

[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. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox JR West Station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and redundant to the standard {{Infobox station}}. Sw2nd (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2013 (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:ORList

[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) 22:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another confusing template similar in wording to {{inclusion}}. Totally unclear from the wording and links if the alleged problem with the list is OR, WP:V, or simply a disputed inclusion criterion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (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:Unblock talk-revoked

[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) 04:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unblock talk-revoked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This hasn't been used all that much, and I think I know why. It's too complicated. There isn't any real reason I can see to require the reviewing admin to reproduce the very comment that led to talk page access being revoked, and even less reason to require a more specific reason from the reviewing admin than the standard "revoking talk page access" message that will be recorded in the block log. This is also redundant to the easier to use {{Blocked talk-revoked-notice}}. I wouldn't object to redirecting this title to that one. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2013 (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:Inclusion

[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, as stated in the nomination, and barely used (in fact, most of the uses seem to be changes by an IP user from Template:ORList which was deleted slightly further up on this page). Anomie⚔ 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another clone of {{famous}}. Redundant to the better worded {{cleanup list}} (for embedded lists) and {{list missing criteria}} for stand-alone lists. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agreed that the cleanup list template does the job, although we need to be sure that for BLPs, sufficient warning is given because we shouldn't associate "notable people" with places we have no RS to support they're related to. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this works in templates, categories and lists, according to its text, while your pointed out duplicates are for lists, so they should be merged into this one. Why do you need two different list cleanup boxes anyways? {{inclusion}} would be better all around than the two list boxes -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2013 (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:Famous

[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Famous (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Famous players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template puts the burden of getting inclusion or exclusion criteria for lists of famous people (on e.g. articles about populated places) on the article editors, resulting in many local discussions with potentially wildly varying results for the same problem. If inclusion or exclusion criteria are needed, a central discussion should be had, and articles checked to see whether they comply with the global consensus that may have emerged. Furthermore, the template as it stands mixes a few things in an unfortunate way: it solely links to WP:V and lists articles tagged with it in Category:Unverifiable lists of persons from August 2013 (or other moths). An article like Randolph, New Hampshire has a list of notable people containing one, referenced, name, so why it should be considered an "unverifiable" list is not clear. Even if the list (or some entries) are unverified, there is nothing that makes it clear why they should be considered "unverifiable".

In short, the template is ill-placed (as discussion should be had centrally, not locally) and ill-executed, as it demand inclusion/exclusion criteria but labels the list as unverifiable, which is totally different (and often not correct as well). Therefor, deletion seems to be the best solution. Fram (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Modify then keep I would agree that the categorisation imparted by the template is sub-optimal (so modify the template to remove or optimise this), but there still remains the problem of random lists of people on articles across all of Wikipedia with no clear inclusion criteria. Did these people live in Randolph? Did they die there? Did they invent something there? (e.g. Clint Murchison, Jr. is listed as a "Notable person" in the Athens, Texas article, but in his own article, there is no mention whatsoever of Athens, Texas... why is he there?) And more often than not, these lists are duplicates of categories such as "People from Randolph, New Hampshire", and are therefore unnecessary in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But your example of Athens indicates a need for a general rule, not a need to put this on all pages. And lists and categories serve different purposes, e.g. lists can have more information, can be more easily subdivided, can have (sourced) redlinks, and so on... Fram (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not a general rule. A rule for a town inhabitants (or whatever the "criteria" applied there was) article may well not apply to "Notable animals" in national parks, or "Notable aircraft" in air force articles. A rule for "inhabitants" might be "lived there", "died there". A rule for animals may be "more than 100 sighted per year". A rule for aircraft may be "at least 10 were used in the history of the force". You can't apply a general rule, unless you care to suggest one? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve - largely per TRM. This template certainly serves a purpose i.e. why are these people associated with this town? Are they "notable" in general 9I would hope so!) or notable in the town or what? Where they born there, lived there, visited once as a child etc.? These kind of 'notable residents' / 'notable people' lists are a real nuisance. GiantSnowman 13:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why would you have these discussions on every single page separately, and not centralized? because that is what the tag (and the tagging) suggests, that for evry town and so on, a discussion needs to be had to decide on your questions, with no guarantees that they will all reach the same conclusions. How does this improve Wikipedia or make things easier and better? Fram (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not know there was a central location for these kinds of lists to be discussed, if you could point me in the right direction it would be much appreciated. GiantSnowman 13:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The village pump? An RfC with a CENT notice? Fram (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, you were talking about a general discussion regarding the merits of these kind of lists as a whole - sounds sensible, though common sense (or mine at least!) dicatates that a list of BLPs which is unreferenced and POV should be removed. GiantSnowman 13:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not necessarily about the merits of such lists (although that can be included as well), but specifically about what the template states, i.e. inclusion/exclusion criteria. Note that many of these lists contain non-BLPs and sourced entries anyway. The POV aspect would largely match the inclusion/exclusion criteria anyway. E.g. Ashland, Ohio has a fair number of entries which are not BLPs and not unsourced, but is tagged anyway. Fram (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Surely that's an issue with the implementation of the template, not the template itslef? Maybe we need two templates then, one to deal with wholly unreferenced lists, one for partial - just as we have {{unsourced}} and {{refimprove}}. GiantSnowman 14:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • But the current template says nothing about being unsourced, it mentions inclusion criteria and places the article in an unverifiable category, which is not the same as unsourced at all. Is there any reason that the existing templates (unsourced section and so on) aren't sufficient and that there needs to be a separate template for notable people lists as parts of larger articles? And do we then also need a separate one for e.g. the "main sights" section that many location articles have as well? After all, they are also arbitrarily decided and often unsourced (no BLP problems though)? Fram (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You queried why a template (which deals with lack of inclusion criteria) was placed in a section with references. "Ashland, Ohio has a fair number of entries which are not BLPs and not unsourced, but is tagged anyway" - that's irrelevant. It's tagged (correctly) because there is no inclusion criteria. GiantSnowman 14:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment importantly, an example of the misuse of these "notable people" section is Ashland, Ohio which, with a tiny bit of inspection, reveals that no fewer than four of the people listed appear to have no connection to Ashland whatsoever. This is a pandemic across these geographical articles which needs purging. So, if we delete this template (and I'm cool with that) then we need another discussion to fix the fact these "notable people" are being added without control and without any evidence to articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Famous. No comment on Famous players. TRM seems to have created this purely for the sake of tagging notable-people sections in US communities, even when (as evidenced with Ashland) the tagging doesn't reflect reality. These sections do often get people who weren't associated with their towns, but standard practice is not to tag sections with unrelated people: we remove unrelated entries ruthlessly, just like we remove nonnotable people. Without this basic purpose, there's no reason to have a separate template for a purpose basically the same as the existing ones mentioned up above. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve - Useful in flagging potential OR in Notable players sections in sports articles. Seems pretty straight forward in its requirement for clear inclusion criteria. If something is tagged with this and you don't thnk the inclusion criteria are clear, then delete. The issue with a lot of the sections where this tag is used is not that the "notable people" are unverifiable as notable within a given article's subject, just that they have not been verified. Fenix down (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly right. So many of the lame US geo-articles with lists of "notable people" or "notable residents" or "famous people" sections have no clear inclusion criteria. Some editors believe people can be included if they were born there. Some if they went to school there. Some if they lived there. Some of they died there. It's entirely unclear in most cases so that's why this template is useful (post-improvement). It worked a treat on football articles where fans of clubs would list "notable players" without any kind of inclusion criteria. The US-geo-article folks need to get on-board with this and understand we're doing this for the reader. I've found dozens of examples of people listed in US-geo articles whose articles make no mention at all of the place in which they're alleged to be notable. Another case of bad management of embedded lists. This template actively helps that affliction. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People must have an article for inclusion under "notables". I concede that a second one is implicit: they must have some WP:RS association with the place! Born there, raised there, retired there. So a citation is mandatory and the bio rarely has that information at all. If it does, it, in turn, is not cited. The template might be reworded, but right now, it's seems more of an irritant to me, than helpful.
Also, section templates are not that helpful by themselves. They may inspire some people to individually label material. This latter templating is helpful. I usually erase sentences/notables/etc. after three months or so without a citation. (We're talking places here, not something really controversial). Student7 (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is that people are listed (a) without clear inclusion criteria and (b) when very often, their articles don't provide any kind of verifiable evidence that the individual in question is actually related in some way to the location in question. We could list Bruce Lee, King Kong and Mike Myers as "notable people" of Grommitown, California, because they all have articles. But usually there's nothing in the Grommitown, CA article saying why they're in the list, nor in their own articles. This template was intended to force editors to say what the inclusion criteria for these embedded lists are. And to meet WP:V by providing "on the spot" references, not relying on sub-articles to reference these murky claims. Out of interest, can you point me to the policy which backs up your statement: "People must have an article for inclusion under "notables". " as that would be very useful indeed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to be picky here. Again we're aren't talking controversial articles, just places (usually). But WP:NN has always worked for me. "Notable" is one of the few words that actually have a recognized meaning in Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But in this instance we are talking about a section that deals with notability, not of itself, but in relation to another subject, this is something that without clear inclusion criteria is not inherently known. A.N. Other may well be notable, so may be the town / sports club of Fooville, but A.N Other is not necessarily a notable associate of that town / club, although their may be an association. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. These templates exist to highlight an all-too-common problem: a list of names which has been picked essentially at random and with no criteria. They do so admirably. The problem hasn't gone away, and there is still a need for the templates. If the wording needs improving, then do so. But there's no need to delete. Modest Genius talk 15:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, the one thing that no one has been able to suggest so far is how deal with such list within individual articles were this template to be deleted. A cit needed template does not really cover it as citation is not the best way to show verifiability. In this instance the template asks for something completely different, clear inclusion criteria. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2013 (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:Poland Squad 2010 Maut–Cup

[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. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poland Squad 2010 Maut–Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Maut–Cup has no notability. Sawol (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:35, 7 August 2013 (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:Bigger

[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 procedural close. Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#What not to propose for discussion here, template redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

A redirect to Template:Larger. Redirect templates are now tricky for the TemplateData system and this one servers no real purpose. The name is confusing as it does not correspond to a CSS size. It has only ever had a few uses mainly via {{The Holocaust}} and it now has no transclusions. Salix (talk): 10:31, 7 August 2013 (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:Books-A-Million graphical timeline

[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) 04:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Books-A-Million graphical timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template, redundant to text of article. I see no visual advantage to this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:54, 7 August 2013 (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:Film infotaula oinarria

[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 all - unused, unusable JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film infotaula oinarria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New user attempted to recreate Infobox film for the article Primos. See also dependent templates {{Izenburu etzana}}, {{Film infotable}}, and {{Film infotaula Content}}. Auric talk 01:35, 7 August 2013 (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/2013_August_7&oldid=1138535438"