Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9

[edit]

Template:Footlights presidents

[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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 March 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:12, 18 March 2017 (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).

Template:Bemani series

[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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 March 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (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).

Template:DEFAULSORT:Khumalo, Kelly

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed test template, unused Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2017 (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).

Template:Dubious

[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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template's documentation says:


Literally every instance I checked seemed to be ignoring the "specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced" and just being used incorrectly, as directed at Template:Dubious#Incorrect_uses, or tagging "unverifiable and probably wrong" content that should merely be removed.

To list just a few:

  • Apollo 8: If the burn had not lasted exactly the correct amount of time -- no source, no discussion on talk page
  • Anatolia: The Egyptians eventually withdrew from the region -- no source, no discussion on talk page
  • Abjad: allowing readers to guess the meaning of unfamiliar words from familiar roots (especially in conjunction with context clues) and improving word recognition -- accompanied by a [citation needed], which this seems to be redundant to
  • Foreign relations of Armenia: Right next to a [citation needed], which is all that is needed there
  • Avicenna: These were known in Latin under the title De Anima (treatises "on the soul"). -- appears to be a total drive-by tag
  • Adelaide: Adelaide's early history was wrought by economic uncertainty and incompetent leadership. -- also appears to be a total drive-by tag
  • Anaximander: as well as by observations made by older civilizations in the East -- drive-by tag
  • Casa_Milà: Right after a source, but otherwise appears to be a drive-by tag

tl;dr; every time I come across this tag, it's not being used for its intended purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @KATMAKROFAN: Nobody ever reads the documentation. If they did, then this template wouldn't be so widely misused. Literally every instance I have ever found of it has been an egregious misuse. This was in no way meant to be a disruptive nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer Speak for yourself, please. I do read it, and I edit template documentation too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 14:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you find incorrect usage, just remove the tag. No reason to delete the template. But I'd like to add that I think the easiest way out of this problem is to remove from the documentation the requirement that statements tagged with this tag must be sourced. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree with Keep, but disagree with deletion of anything except in cases of the most gross misuse. It is standard and widespread practice by those incapable of creating new templates or informed/enduring enough to engage in drawnout template documentation edits—thanks to TPH that he does—those so less experienced/endowed use the best available tag when one precisely appropriate is not available. And this type of tag placement is potentially a very valuable contribution to the encyclopedia (see for instance, the Electorate of Saxony article, a longstanding completely unsourced article, where "dubious" marks the WP:OR/plagiarising editor's confounding a parenthetical lifespan with the year span of an elector's reign). So, if "dubious" tags a copyedit or vandalism, remove and fix. Anything else, unless time is taken to research the problem, leave it for someone willing to do so. See also the suggestion below. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if it's often used in a way not envisioned in the documentation, it does get "proper" use, see for example Chromium or Chalcogen. But then, even in the instances of "incorrect" use for tagging unsourced statements, this template is useful as it adds a semantic nuance not present in the other templates. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Citation needed}} implies a statement appears valid but should be supported by a source. {{Dubious}} implies that a statement does not appear valid and ought to be removed unless a source is provided. With no tag for that purpose, the only "correct" procedure would be to delete the statements. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is not deleted, then can a workaround be proposed to curb rampant misuse? Like some kind of warning on the article if no discussion is linked? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Refine the documentation or enforce usage, but the template is too useful to trash. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clean up the documentation, possibly widened to reflect usage. Anmccaff (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute, emphatic keep. Often all the necessary discussion is contained in the Edit summary made at time of placing the tag, see Comment above on the Electorate of Saxony article. Agree with points made by @Anmccaff: and @C.Fred:, regarding need for better documentation, and that disappearance of this tag would result in simple deletion edits (ruinous to quality/content, I think, by disrupting paragraph flow, deleting critically needed facts [like lifespan], etc.) just because first writer got things wrong. And, reply a firm No to the kind of warning suggested by TPH, because it is a slay the messenger approach. (The only warning most articles sprinkled with "dubious-discuss" needs is a warning that the content itself is suspect.)
Next, here is a simple suggestion which might satisfy TPH, and allow follow-on editors to make a contribution that is not destructive: Add the option, as in some other tags, to turn off the "?" and to turn off the "discuss" components of the tag. If the original editor does not discuss the matter in the Edit Summary or Talk, a follow-on editor can adjust the tag (removing "?", and removing "-discuss", if finding the content indeed dubious and documenting cause in their summary). That is, give us greater flexibility to get application of the tag accurate, and then better instruct new users through the documentation, to allow its improved use.
Otherwise, having run the foregoing suggestion up, if it does get a salute: The consensus here is clear. (Or, fine with me to make this a perpetual discussion, so that the TfD discussion link that now further highlights all the dubious statements in WP remains in place in perpetuity, to warn unwary readers.) Cheers, thanks for comments and effort to keep this useful tool. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I am reminded of the practice in many campus quads of paving the walkways only after the footpaths in the grass have been established. If editors are misusing this template then that is an indication that there is a need that is not being satisfied by the current set of templates, and this misuse comes closest to satisfying that need. I agree with C.Fred, the {{Citation needed}} does not necessarily carry the implication that the statement is doubtful and this sometimes needs to be implied, whether or not there is an associated citation. Legitimately these are two different circumstances, so perhaps an option can be added to distinguish the cases...if that is really useful. The problem here can be dealt with by fixing the documentation, not removing the template.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template documentation may need to be updated, but tracking usages of this template remains a fantastic way to find things that need to be fixed. I encourage "speedy keep" !voters here to review WP:SKCRIT and identify which of the very narrow criteria there apply. VQuakr (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove that ugly TfD tag ASAP. "Literally every instance I checked seemed to be ignoring the "specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced" and just being used incorrectly" Then change the documentation to match the reality of usage. It's a tag for dubious statements, regardless of whether they are sourced. The tag for statements that are sourced but still dubious is Template:verification failed. 71.167.63.188 (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is the tag for when the citation does not support the claim at all. Dubious may be used when the source itself is dubious. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:09, 13 March 2017 (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).

Template:US executive actions introduction

[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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 March 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (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).

Template:YaleCranialNerves

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) links are all dead; (2) we have adequate cranial nerves here (3) no need therefore to preference Yale above an additional google search should readers wish to investigate further Tom (LT) (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2017 (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).

Template:Transwiki

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary fork of {{prod}}. — Train2104 (t • c) 18:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work since A5 only applies to dictionary definitions, primary sources, and transwikis that were the result of AFD's. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2017 (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).

Template:RocheLexicon

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holds links that no longer work. All links now redirect to the same german website. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tom (LT), I changed the url to use the web archive, so the links kind of work now. but, I can see how this may not be the best solution. Frietjes (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2017 (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).

Template:ISP 1

[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. One wants to keep, one wants to merge the text into the original template, one wants to delete outright. The overall consensus is to not delete it completely (i.e. save at least some part of it), but further discussion about if that actually happens will either require a talk page discussion or a new "merge" TFD. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{ISP}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. {{ISP}} invites the editor to create an account, which is, of course, normally a good thing to do. However, occasionally, in a case of a persistent block-evading editor, asking him or her to create an account to get round the IP blocks that are there to stop him or her from editing is the last thing we want to do. I created {{ISP 1}} to deal with that situation. The need for it rarely arises, so I have rarely used it, but there are occasionally good reasons for using it, and I don't see that its existence does any harm, so deleting it would not provide any benefit. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2017 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_9&oldid=1073740060"