Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 12

< March 11	March 13 >

March 12

Tagging citation style

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) 03:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Clarifyref2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created and used mainly by a single user to tag references that are not in their preferred format. Misuses Template:Clarify, which is used for requesting clarification of article text. Citation style is not something that needs to be tagged. Dodo bird (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but change meta template from {{Clarify}} to {{Specify}}, which had not been created as a distinction from {{Clarify}} when {{Clarifyref}} and {{Clarifyref2}} where created; doing so would also suggest renaming to {{Specifyref}} and {{Specifyref2}}. As a deletion nomination, the rationale is faulty on almost every level. Most importantly, poor referencing emphatically is a matter for cleanup tagging; it is actually the single most common form of cleanup and dispute tagging, ranging from inline suggestions that a citation is needed (or possibly unreliable, or unverified, or a dead link, or misinterpreted, or ...) to huge, red, article-top warnings. Whether incomplete citations, which are difficult to distinguish from WP:SPAM and other reasons someone might paste a URL into an article here, and may be difficult to verify as reliable sources, is or is not "something that needs to be tagged" is not a WP:TFD discussion. Incomplete citations may not be the most severe poor referencing problem one could tag for cleanup, but there is no consensus that they are trivial. All templates are "created ... by a single user". The template is substituted, so nominator's claim that only I use it cannot be proven, and would not be a rationale for deletion in the first place (a template not having many uses is a rationale, e.g. an infobox that can't be used in more than two articles, but there is no "editor count" principle at TfD). At least one other user has edited these templates, suggesting other editors use them anyway. Finally, nominator's "[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASMcCandlish&diff=543710011&oldid=543666548 If you don't want to fix it yourself, leave it alone" sentiment is placing the burden of proof in the wrong place – it is the responsibility of those adding purported sources to do so properly and in a way that makes them verifiable, not to dump suspicious URLs in articles with no explanation of what they are or how they are relevant much less reliable, which simply creates pointless work for other editors, cleaning up after such laziness, or worse yet it simply leaves articles in a poorly verified and questionably reliable state indefinitely. There is no policy or consensus basis to "leave alone" incomplete source citations, and WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR do not support such an idea. There is no rationale for deletion here. I would suggest a change from Clarify to Specify, though, as the newer Specify template is actually a more appropriate underlying basis for these two. PS, nominator did not tag Template:Clarifyref2 with a TfD notice (I fixed that). I'm now on wikibreak for a while. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the "specify" templates are the wrong basis? They're concerned with missing citations, not incomplete ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a citation too inspecific to tell it from spam or an error isn't much different from an entirely missing one, and it seems a closer match that just generally needing "clarification". A third option is custom code. I would encouraging asking WT:WPILT for input. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 13:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious from the above wall of text why we need two templates here, or what the fundamental difference is between this and {{failed verification}} or {{irrelevant citation}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading template documentation usually takes care of questions like that. 24.23.163.55 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So the latter automatically adds the date? That's not a good reason for a fork at all. The documentation doesn't adequately explain why this isn't broadly redundant to existing fix templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure it does, as do the template names. {{failed verification}} is for use after someone has tried to verify that the citation is valid, and this attempt has failed. {{irrelevant citation}} is for use after someone has tried to verify that the citation is actually relevant to the material citing it, and has found that it isn't. {{clarify ref}} is for reference citatations that need clarification because they are missing crucial information, e.g. author, date, title, etc., most often just copy-pastes of URLs. It's not a "fork" from anything. PS: A paragraph of a few sentences is not a "wall of text", and if you feel it to be one, editing an encyclopedia that consists mostly of page after page of text, growing all the time, may not be the best hobby for you. >;-) I'm busy dealing with a WP:AE issue and won't be responding here further. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 13:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Citations often need to be clarified. Toddst1 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But what does "clarified" mean, here? If the citation doesn't back up what's on the page, then we already have tags for that. If it means "is missing a page number" or "is missing a quotation" then we should flag that, rather than adding a tag which essentially says "there's something wrong here", surely? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an argument for improving the template, not deleting it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 13:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is certainly a need for a general template which flags citations as being incomplete/inadequate. It's not correct to say "fix it yourself or don't flag up the problem": the citation may be for a source you can't access, e.g. a book you don't have which needs the relevant pages specified. Now in this particular case there's a specific template {{Page needed}}. The "obvious" template for incomplete/inadequate citations, {{Incomplete citation}}, is just a redirect to {{Full}} whose documentation doesn't suggest using it for partially incomplete citations. So I don't support deleting these templates, but I do think that their wording and suggested use needs to be clarified. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like T:Full could be Shanghai'd into this use without damaging the intent of the template, which would seem to solve the problems of "clarifyref". --Izno (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that {{Full}} could be reworded to cover {{Clarifyref}}, which could then become a redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: that looks like the right thing for the use case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 18 March 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:Atlantic 10 Conference Men's Basketball Season Champions

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, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atlantic 10 Conference Men's Basketball Season Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is navbox creep. Also something I consider to be applicable under WP:NENAN. At most, an A-10 champions category could be made, but not another navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There has been an understanding, if not a formal consensus, that the college sports Wikiprojects will not create conference championship navboxes, choosing instead to emphasize national championship navboxes. My "delete" !vote here is a vote to sustain that understanding, in conformance with Jrcla's comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of these articles don't even exist. Such redlinked filled navboxes should be avoided, per WP:NAV. BTW, I think Jrcla2 was referencing WP:ATC not WP:CREEP. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is another open TfD about a very similar navbox that can be found here. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Rikster2 (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, best to nip this in the bud here. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:51, 13 March 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:Friendly association football tournaments in Poland

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, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Poland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN; serves no real purpose, doesn't link enough notable articles. These kind of templates are not notable. Giant Snowman 19:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the primary purpose of navboxes is to cross-link existing articles, this template famously fails that basic criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 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:Modelref

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) 20:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

A couple of dozen transclusions. This promotes linkspam, and many of the links in question are to unreliable or user-generated sources. WP:EL discourages this sort of scattergun external linking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, after replacement with individual templates (where appropriate). Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 18 March 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:Orthodoxwiki permission

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, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orthodoxwiki permission (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions and improperly formatted for an attribution template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 15 March 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:Orthodoxwiki note

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, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orthodoxwiki note (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions and improperly formatted for an attribution template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 15 March 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:Nature-Wiki

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) 04:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nature-Wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, designed for talk use rather than article use (which is where attribution belongs) and formatted as a banner rather than inline. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 15 March 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:Rywiki talk

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) 04:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Attribution is only needed on the article, not on talk as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 15 March 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:Rywiki

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) 04:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Attribution template used on only four pages. not of general utility. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a replacement can be used. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No replacement is needed. This will just be substituted onto the existing transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Switch to delete after substitution per comment below. --Izno (talk) 12:53, 19 March 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:Phantiswiki

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) 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Attribution template used on only a single page. Not of general utility. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a replacement can be used. Licensing is not a question of utility, Chris. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. This will be substituted onto the pages that use it. I'm not suggesting that attribution is unneeded here, only that we don't need a template to do it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's hardly a misunderstanding if you don't tell people that you plan on substing it (we're not mind readers)! Please be clear about your intentions in the future. Switch to delete after substitution. --Izno (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies: I'd assumed this was clear enough. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:43, 20 March 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:Template incorrect

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) 04:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ancient, unused warning template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 15 March 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:Recent changes article requests

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, although given it's very limited use, I have removed the cascade protection. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent changes article requests (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Article requests" have nothing to do with the rest of the "recent changes" header. The purpose of recent changes is tracking recent changes, correcting entries, reverting vandalism, ... The purpose of the article requests is to create new articles. The recent changes header is already rather large, removing this line from it would make it a bit more compact by removing clutter. Note also that since July 2012, two articles have been added to the list[1], so it's not intensively being used either. Note: all subpages of this template should be deleted as well, if this one goes. Fram (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is there a css hack that can hide it? I can see the point of it, though I agree with the nom that it isn't relevant to recent changes. On that grounds, I think I have to weak support the proposal to delete. An optimist on the run! 12:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming and removing it from MediaWiki:Recentchangestext JayJay^{What did I do?} 14:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are arguing for a rename of this template (e.g. Template:Article requests) and removing it from MediaWiki:Recentchangestext, both of which I might support. But deleting the template would mean it has no possible use anywhere, which I find doubtful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of lists of requested articles, this is apparently a random selection of some 500 of them. If you can find a use for it, feel free to rename it and use it there, but I can't see it. Fram (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the requests themselves supposed to be recent? Abductive (reasoning) 06:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that was the meaning, but it certainly isn't the case. The first version, from March 2010, started with "Tokyo Datum"[2], the current version, three years later, still starts with "Tokyo Datum", the second one, "Kahn..." is also present on the two, as is the third, "Archar (village)". Fram (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the logic in the template, the first few entries are highly likely to remain on the template for a long time. This is because it starts from a random position and gives the next 5 (non-existent) requests. Therefore #1 will be displayed 5 times less frequently than #5. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the next fex, starting at e.g. #10, "Exigence theory", it appears in the original and the current; the same applies to #12, "Data Access Protocol", #13, "Vadali Obava", and #14, "Seal bearer". #15, Abaiang Island, is a redirect to a much older article. Only #11, Otto II the Black, is actually an article (whether created anyway or because of this list is obviously unknown). Fram (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion/knowledge of other potential uses of this template, but I don't understand what it is doing at Recent changes. It does not seem relevant. Also, something with it is broken because sometimes it just displays "[[]] - [[]] - [[]]". 86.146.107.128 (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen this malfunction, but if you are seeing that then it is probably is broken. For this reason, and in light of other comments here I have removed it from MediaWiki:Recentchangestext for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I can confirm the IP's message, the same malfunction (complete or partial) happened to me a few times when researching it, but I didn't want to use a (perhaps) temporary technical problem as a reason in a more fundamental TfD. Fram (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This has also happened to me alot. JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:44, 14 March 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:Csb-pageincluded

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 do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Csb-pageincluded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Csb-pageincludes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Csb-pageincluded with Template:Csb-pageincludes.
Appears to duplicate the template, no longer used after August 2012 Eye snore (PC) 01:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, they're not quite the same. One is used in the case where the wiki page is a substantial copy of a part some external page, and the other in the case where part of the wiki page is a substantial copy of an external page. That said, the currently used templates are those of the bot that's currently doing the copyvios (madman's), but there is no reason to think that CSBot might not need to be revived in the future. — Coren ^(talk) 01:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still run VWBot on occasion when MadmanBot goes down (most recently on February 11th), and I use these templates directly. So they have been used since August, just not on a regular continuous basis. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is (no action needed) per above discussion -PC-XT+ 11:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise keep – I've made user space copies of these and other CSB templates for MadmanBot, but as Coren says there's always a possibility CorenSearchBot will be revived, and if it were not so then the preferable course of action would be to merge my user space copies back into template space. Cheers, — madman 03:08, 15 March 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.