Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 05:44, 2 September 2008 (→Template:Citations missing (3nd nomination): Redundant code (self-fix).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 31 September 2 >

September 1


Template:Citations missing (3nd nomination)

Template:Citations missing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There was a previous 2008 "no consensus" TfD on this template, and earlier "keep" one in 2006.

Redundant and terribly confusing, as it is trying to address two completely different problems at the same time (or one, or the other, depending upon the specific usage of the template, but which of the three meanings is intended cannot be specified with any of the template's parameters). The lack of reference citations, and the lack of formatting of existing reference citations as footnotes are essentially unrelated issues (one a matter of policy, one a matter of growing but by no means complete consensus about the value of a style guideline's non-insistent recommendation that Cite.php's footnoting system be used.). It's first purpose is served by {{Refimprove}}/{{Unreferenced}} and its second, contradictory, one is served by {{Morefootnotes}}/{{Nofootnotes}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Updated for clarity (new material marked with <ins>) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and redirect to {{Refimprove}} Merge to {{Morefootnotes}} (as nominator). Since this template can be used to flag both matters of policy (WP:V issues) and matters of guideline-advised footnote formatting (or even both at the same time), and policy trumps guidelines (and lack of sources is far more important and serious than how they are formatted), the safest option is to redirect it to a WP:V template, not a WP:CITE one. {{Refimprove}} {{Morefootnotes}} (a better redir/merge target, as majority use of {{Citations missing}} is in this direction, not WP:V issues) also supports all of {{Citations missing}}'s parameters (among others not present in the latter). It could go to {{Unreferenced}} or something else more dire than {{Refimprove}}, but and nothing about {{Citations missing}} implies that the article has no citations. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Updated to better reflect debate history (new material marked with <ins>, deletions with <del>) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very week keep: something about refimprove always struck me as "everything's referenced, but there need to be more references - because just one or two references isn't enough". I mean, that is kind of what it says, "[the article] needs additional citations". If we were to tweak the wording in refimprove I'd probably say keep, although then we have the problem of people not having a template that says "this article needs more than one source to cite everything". And really, is it so bad that we have two relatively similar problems combined in one template? I mean it's not like people are going to look at the template and say "How in the world can I figure out whether this article is missing citations or whether it doesn't use footnotes". So alas, for now I would say week keep. I would say if it was deleted we should change unreferenced to read "This article has unreferenced statements" - and then redirect this template to that.--danielfolsom 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: Isn't this the 3rd nomination? 1, 2 and this is 3?--danielfolsom 01:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, I didn't notice the 2006 one (though I don't think the earlier 2008 one mentioned it either). Updated the note up above to account for it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long comment on the TFD history so far: On a reading of the original nomination, it almost certainly should have been closed as "no consensus" due to just outright voting. The original TFD's main "keep" argument notes that "it explicitly requests footnotes whereas [{{unreferenced}}] does not" (i.e. the original purpose of this template was to request Cite.php inline citations, not flag a lack of sources, making it presently redundant with {{Morefootnotes}}. Meanwhile {{Citations missing}} has had its purpose scope creeped to overlap with that of {{Refimprove}} / {{Unreferenced}}, and its deployment rate has been steadily declining.
I Re-propose merge to {{Morefootnotes}} instead (nom updated, above). The chief April 2008 rationale was "{{Citations missing}} is used for articles that just need more footnotes", and explicitly recognized the redundancy, suggesting that {{Refimprove}} be deleted as younger (but also noting it as more popular). I guess that means the real debate is which of these templates to delete-and-redir with bot cleanup. "{{Refimprove}} is popular partly because a bunch of templates were merged there, and SmackBot canonicalises template names when it dates them. It would be trivial to merge the two" (Apr. '08 nom).
So: I honestly don't care much which template survives as long as a) they aren't redundant (much less doubly so!) and b) the name and documentation make it clear what its purpose is and is not (so I lean toward {{Morefootnotes}}). Regardless, there are clearly too many of these tags. From same TDF (#2): "there is no reason to break something that is working" – but it isn't, as the purpose of the template has bifurcated, making even accurate categorization impossible: "As it currently stands, {{citations missing}} is too vague to determine whether it is a request for more references or more footnotes, and different people use it in different situations." (Apr. '08 again). Sorry to quote so much, but I think it's important that the history be examined in detail, given than many of the templates under discussion did not even exist in May 2006 (TFD #1); times have changed.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CONCACAF Gold Cup templates

Template:Mexico Squad 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mexico Squad 2005 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mexico Squad 2003 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mexico Squad 2002 CONCACAF Gold Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These competitions aren't notable and most of the links are either stub articles or are red links. BlueRed 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, pending WP:AFD: Article subject notability is not determined by WP:TFD; that is WP:AFD's purpose. That most of the articles are stubs is not particularly relevant here; the vast majority of WP articles began as stubs. Furthermore, only Template:Mexico Squad 2002 CONCACAF Gold Cup has any redlinks at all. The fact that all the more recent (i.e. relevant) ones are fully bluelinked, coupled with several missing years, strongly suggests that these materials are still under development. And, will ya look at that, only one of these templates was more than a few hours old when it was TFD-tagged. If AFD deletes the articles, then by all means the templates go too, of course. PS: Only one major contributor was notified of this TFD (I notified the other one just now). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is longstanding consensus at WP:FOOTY to keep these kinds of squad navigational templates for World Cup rosters only. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Actually there was a very recent discussion at WP:FOOTY. Current consensus is to keep these for all World Cup and Top level Continental Cups due to notability and ease of navigation. I'll try and dig up the discussion, it was started after a similar TfD Paul  Bradbury 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The longstanding convention that only World Cup templates should be used was only overturned based on a single TfD during Euro 2008 itself, which I suspect heavily influenced the result. Hopefully now we will return to the pre-summer arrangement, and get rid of them all again. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThen please state your argument for deleting them, what Wikipedia policy do they violate that requires their removal? The original request states that this is not a notable competition, that is not true as it meets Wikipedia guidlines on notability. So is there another reason? Paul  Bradbury 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Histfact

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

Redundant (it's pretty close to a WP:CSD#T3, as a functional duplicate of {{facts}} and others). Also appears, in its confused and confusing documentation, to be drawing distinctions not recognized by Wikipedia:Verifiability and related guidelines and policies (namely that there is some special difference between "general" facts and facts with regard to the history or historical environment of "general" facts). Its three examples of usage can easily be handled with better-established templates (examples below). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to {{fact}} (as nominator). Examples of why the template it not needed, drawn from its own documentation. First is given the intended use of {{histfact}}, then how it is usually done.
  • "started by Lord Champs in 2001 and enhanced two years later{{histfact}}"
"started by Lord Champs in 2001 and enhanced two years later{{facts}}"
  • "the organization was founded in 1978 when the natural disasters had increased{{histfact}}"
"the organization was founded in 1978 when the natural disasters had increased{{facts}}"
or
"the organization was founded in 1978{{fact}} when the natural disasters had increased{{fact}}"
if for some reason it is expected that two different sources will be needed.
  • "these Celtic tribes survived more than one invasion{{histfact}}"
"these Celtic tribes survived more than one invasion{{fact}}{{clarifyme|reason=Which ones?}}"
Also, it was not proposed at (nor even known to) WP:WikiProject Inline Templates. While this is not "quasi-required" by consensus yet the way it is with stub tags and WP:WPSS, it is suggestive that the author(s) of the template may not have been aware of the extent to which there are already many such templates, many of them merged after creations of near-duplicates like this, and that the boiled-down remainder already cover virtually all inline dispute-tagging needs adequately (including this one). As the examples above show, {{histfact}} doesn't really tell the reader/editor anything newly more specific or useful, and if particular needs with regard to "historical" sourcing exist, they can best be indicated with particular use of other tags (or better yet by plain English on the talk page).
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian of the Year Award

Template:Australian of the Year Award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used, replaced with standard templates. Bazj (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box one to two U.S. Rep to Senator

Template:Succession box one to two U.S. Rep to Senator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used, replaced with standard templates. Was created for the situation where someone sat in House, then Senate, succeeding the same person in both seats. Now that we have header strap lines its continued use would mean either the House seat sits under a Senate strap line or vice-versa. Bazj (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box two to one U.S. Rep to Senator

Template:Succession box two to one U.S. Rep to Senator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used, replaced with standard templates. Was created for the situation where someone sat in House, then Senate, and was succeeded by the same person in both seats. Now that we have header strap lines its continued use would mean either the House seat sits under a Senate strap line or vice-versa. See Marcus A. Smith and Virgil Chapman for the two instances it was used. Bazj (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. House of Representatives
Japanese royalty
U.S. Senate
Church of England titles
--Bazj (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Born age

Template:Born age (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unused. Many other templates are in place that do pretty much the same thing. --- RockMFR 02:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_1&oldid=235752988"