Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 10

< April 9	April 11 >

April 10

Template:Location map/simple

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]

delete, we don't need them any more. Frietjes (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unused and unneeded. If there is any fix in them that is worth keeping then it should be proposed for the main template, but that now seems unlikely as the problem they were addressing is fixed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikid77 just re-added this template to National Constitution Center. With the recent changes he made to it, it looks identical to the way it did with Template:Location map (screenshot at File:Location map simple 2.png), but is more cluttered since it isn't integrated with the infobox anymore. I'm not going to change it back on my own though, to avoid getting into an edit war. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further inspection, points displayed with Template:Location map/simple are all slightly too high and to the left. An analysis of the code reveals that they are deliberately being set to only 99.2% and 99.9% of the correct distance. See Talk:National Constitution Center#New Jersey for more details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've returned it to the infobox/using {{Location map}}, fixing the missing map label (that's the second Infobox variant, after {{Infobox_UK_place}}, with different names for this field I've seen recently, a good argument for rationalising these very similar location infoboxes).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've created custom images to test exactly where each template places images. See the top of Special:Permalink/603918736 to see the results. In all modern browsers, it appears that this template misplaces the mark (since the square is only partially gray), while Template:Location map places it properly (since the square is fully gray). Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. Yet another one of Wikid77's unilateral forks. The onus is on him to work with the community to fix his (real or imagined) shortcomings in the standard templates. The community as a whole doesn't find this fork justified. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:41, 14 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.

Template:New Orleans tournaments

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.

Template:Koenraad Elst

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]

delete if all (or most) of the linked articles are deleted, but keep if they are kept. Frietjes (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep looks like the nominator has a penchant dislike for Elst, recently he nominated a book by elst for deletion and the result was "keep".-sarvajna (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The majority of AFD`s have been closed as delete, two of the books were kept and two redirected. So this template now has but two books in it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete most likely. At present, there are only 3 live links in the template, and I seem to recall that the WP rule of thumb is a minimum of about 5 articles for a template like this. If there were to be 5 relevant articles that are stably existing, then a Template could be re-instated. --Presearch (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note Following a merger discussion the template no longer have any articles in it, just some redirects. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-informative. By the way, the merger-discussion wasn't concluded yet, so there are still two links in it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 20 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.

Template:Governments of France

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]

delete I agree - it looks somewhat odd and takes page's space and at least could be placed at the bottom of the pages as Governments of France --Nivose (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete redundant to Template:History of France. ^walk victor falk^talk 19:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I think it's a good idea to delete this template based on the initial proposial BucaFan3 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 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.

Template:Drug-emerging

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?

~~Keep~~ Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a hard and fast rule here: we do not include disclaimers as to medical accuracy in articles, because this gives readers the false impression that articles which are not tagged are valid medical advice. End of story. There are no corner cases here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Urgh. Disclaimers like this went out of fashion several years ago. The remaining current event templates are designed for articles which are being updated every minute based on 24-hour news coverage, not sporadic peer reviews which take months or years to produce. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, don't need a disclaimer. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 27 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.

Template:MIR

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]

If it's not being used extensively I don't see any reason to keep it. It was one of the earliest of those kinds of templates IIRC (I see that it predates clarify and specify by some months. I liked its original name of {{WTF}} better. :P --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With only seventeen transclusions, it's plain that the community is handling the issue that this purports to fix well enough without it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be aimed at a different problem than {{clarify}} and {{specify}}, and I can think of times I would have used it had I know of it. It looks like it is a less assertive version of {{dubious}}. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare {{disputed-inline}} and {{citation needed}} with {{dubious}}. As Gmaxwell notes, MIR (neé WTF) served a useful, if more general purpose before other templates were created. Cnilep (talk) 23:01, 12 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.

Template:Infobox American championship car race report (Multiple Races)

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]

delete, and it seems as though the only existing transclusion is broken since the syntax used in the article does not match the syntax used in the template. Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 14 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.