Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 10

[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) 01:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map/simple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Location map/sandbox5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Location map~/sandbox5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally created per Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 103#HTML 5 snafu - pushpin points moved south as an attempt to fix Template:Location map displaying points in the wrong locations. However (today at least, not sure about when they were originally created), it is actually these templates that display points incorrectly, whereas Template:Location map works fine. See File:Location map simple.png for a screenshot of this. These templates are unused and obsolete, as they don't support the new Lua map definition style, and the "real" Template:Location map now uses Lua entirely, and has a lower expansion depth than these templates, as well as better performance in just about every other category. Also, see the following (closed) TfD discussions where other forks of Template:Location map were recently discussed: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 14#Template:Location map all and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 15#Template:Location map quick. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2014 (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.
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) 01:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Orleans tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2014 (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.
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) 03:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Koenraad Elst (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless template, all these books are NN and are up for deletion, and it seems they all will be deleted. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2014 (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.
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) 03:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Governments of France (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of these governments of France are not just included in the Template:History of France, but make up most of it. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (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.
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, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drug-emerging (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Article-only transclusions link

If "Sources may fail to meet Wikipedia standards", as the template states, content should be removed. Using this template instead violates WP:V / WP:MEDRS. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This template is used in the same vein as the similar one for current events and is a good way to allow wikipedia to remain on the cutting-edge where there is no published data. The template does not justify use of unacceptable references but provides a warning where sources don't quite match the usual significantly-above-threshold level. Testem (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm kind of siding with the others here, but am really open to the possibility of it being used more along the lines of {{Medref}}. Pyrazolam seems to just be waiting for laboratory confirmation of receptor binding affinity, something I can't possibly see as life threatening.
However, we might inadvertently jeopardize the safety of readers; to play Devil's advocate, suppose we write about a brand-new antidepressant, only to find suicidal thoughts are observed only after it hit the market? People don't seem to listen to WP:NOMEDICALADVICE, and perhaps we shouldn't write about the medication until after thorough FDA testing?
Fortunately, it doesn't appear to be used that way. I briefly examined the 10 currently tagged. Almost all are hallucinogens, with the longest tag dating back to October 2013. I note that 25B-NBOMe has 11 sources, and is apparently only waiting for scientific confirmation of the dosage needed to be effective (that is, to "trip"). That doesn't strike me as particularly harmful. Plus, the others appear to clearly mark areas needing improvement with {{citation needed}} tags, and don't attempt to be WP:CRYSTAL.
Perhaps we keep the tag but stress (in the documentation) that we shouldn't tag articles where a lack of reliable information could be potentially injurious to life or health? Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and it seems you've covered my point more eloquently and understandably than I was able to. I am a little confused about the meaning of your last paragraph though. A lack of reliable information on a drug (and even a lack of information) could always be potentially injurious. Testem (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use templates for that. We have a general project-wide disclaimer which suffices. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me address both of the above comments in one response. Chris Cunningham (I assume) was referring to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, which says, basically, "Don't trust Wikipedia to save your life. There's a chance we could be wrong." I cited that above as the shortcut WP:NOMEDICALADVICE. I meant I thought editors should use this tag with care, not that readers need a disclaimer tag for articles; there are enough already and more disclaimers would give us legal issues.
There are no hard-and-fast rules here, and it's really discretionary. I personally do not think that the lack of data on Pyrazolam will kill, maim, or poison a person. Laboratory confirmation of the strength of a drug binding to a receptor in the body is something accessory; unimportant and unlikely to be harmful. What I don't want to see is someone tagging the section Acetominophen#Overdose with this tag.
Pretty much everything else falls somewhere in between. After all, how can we not know what we don't know?
I agree, but I don't think that applies here because this isn't a medical disclaimer. As Meteor sandwich yum points out, this is more a tag for editors. Testem (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thumperward: I feel like you're not listening to me. I don't want this to be a warning to readers in any way. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not possible while this remains an articlespace tag. In lieu of alternatives as to its placement, it cannot be used. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think I finally understand what you mean. Sources may fail to meet Wikipedia standards due to insufficient published research = Warning. Gotchya. I think the tag was written ambiguously, leaving one to wonder—Is it undersourced? factual accuracy compromised? it is from biased sources? was something crucial left out? what "Wikipedia standard" do they mean?—and causing this deletion discussion to become complicated. I took it to be a label, but it could also be construed as a disclaimer in an article. Re-casting my vote as delete and agreeing with Thumperward below; research can take years on low-visibility drugs.
I considered moving it to talk-namespace but it doesn't seem terribly useful; re-writing it to be more specific and less of a disclaimer almost defeats the purpose; in the end {{Pharma-stub}} will probably suffice for all transcluded pages, or something similar.
Ugh, this has been a comedy of errors. If it wouldn't be more confusing, I'd take a sharpie and black out all the bits I misunderstood.
Delete. If sources fail to meet Wikipedia standards, those sources should not be used. If content can only be based on sources that do not meet Wikipedia standards, that content should not be included in any Wikipedia article. It is not Wikipedia's aim to be "cutting-edge where there is no published data". Why should an exception to core policies such as WP:V, WP:GNG, and WP:RS be made for an "emerging or novel drug"? -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said above, the intention is not for this to permit inappropriate content. My use of "published" was inappropriate and confusing - what I was thinking in my head was peer-reviewed. For what it's worth, I see the open-editability of wikipedia and subsequent ability to react quickly to new developments as one of its major strengths. Testem (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2014 (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.
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) 04:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to the template's own documentation, its usage overlaps {{clarify}} and {{specify}}, as well as templates for dubious information. It is not at all clear to me that this serves any function unmet by those templates. I do note that deletion of this template would necessitate re-tagging the 25 articles that currently transclude it, but I don't think that is a bad thing.

Editors interested in this discussion may also be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 7#Template:WTF. Cnilep (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2014 (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.
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) 04:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox American championship car race report (Multiple Races) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use fork of Template:Infobox American championship car race report. If the extra fields are necessary, they should be added to the original template. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (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.