Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3 edit

Template:CongLinks 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 no consensus to delete, but there appears to be consensus to limit/shorten the number of links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per the deletion of the ngolinks template, nominating this for deletion as well. The fields create an indiscriminate list of external links, many of which are clear-cut violations of WP:ELNO and others that really should be decided on a case-by-case basis as opposed to blanket template attachment. It makes external link cleanup difficult-to-impossible, and simply doesn't meet our guidelines or, in some cases, policies regarding links and sites. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's transcluded on 2971 pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (preferred), alternative is refocus and substitute, and mark the template substitute-only if kept. Some of the links are relevant for many congresspersons and candidates, and approach WP:ELYES unless already used as a reference. Among the documented tags:
    • congbio, congress: approaches "Official" and likely to have information which can and should be used
    • ballot: marginal; it is a quasi-wiki; not always relevant
    • fec: reliable, but not always relevant
    • govtrack, opencong, opensecrets, legistorm, followthemoney, ontheissues: generally reliable, usually not relevant
    • c-span, rose: Quasi-search results
    • imdb, nndb (sorry, that one's not documented), worldcat: Usually not relevant
    • bloomberg, guardian, nyt, wsj, washpro: much like a search result.
    My second choice (after an outright delete) would be to substitute only the congbio, congress, and fec links, and then delete and repurpose the template to a substitute-only use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge to {{CongBio}}. (I think "upmerge" is the correct term.) {{CongBio}} is enough.—GoldRingChip 01:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template has the same problems as recently deleted NGOlinks (see discussion here) which was argued to be a violation of several parts of WP:EL, including WP:ELPOINTS which says that the external links section "should be kept to a minimum," and WP:ELMAYBE which says "Long lists of links are not acceptable." The WP:EL guideline says "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter." This template violates the instruction by ushering a group of links into the article without subjecting them one by one to increasingly strict assessment. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limit/Shorten - Many of the articles on Congresspersons that I've read have been... sparse. In removing this template, are we removing information from those pages that functions, if nothing else, as a stopgap measure that informs readers of where they can find further information not currently provided in the article? Second, per WP:ELYES (item 3), I'd suggest keeping at least one link that leads to a page that collects the congressperson's list of votes and legislation sponsored/co-sponsored. That's information that can't be included in the article due to too much detail (and difficulty in keeping it updated), but that is still valuable. Govtrack, for example, has a list of legislation sponsored, a graph showing the congressperson's sponsorship on an ideological scale, and their voting record (percent of votes missed). I'd consider that interesting data. I'm new to the rules of WP:EL, but those are the factors I thought of. Get rid of unreliable sources or random search results, but keep links to information that can't be put into the article on its own. I know little about how templates actually work, so I won't comment on that aspect. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Shorten - I may be responsible for this template's use in about 1/6 of the transclusions (rough estimate without counting); I consider ballotpedia, votesmart, and followthemoney to be essential to creating state legislator articles, though they may be inaccurate, they are all more complete than Wikipedia, and we would do our readers a disservice not to include them. I see the linkfarms on ballotpedia and some on votesmart that are definitely 'better there than here'. I include Findagrave on the ones I've created, though I don't see it listed and it may not parse. Having to add them separately would be more difficult for those of us with disabilities, especially if work has to be re-done, but we'll see. Those that throw up search results may be unnecessary, but still helpful. Dru of Id (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The most useful aspect of CongLinks (and GovLinks) is for NON-members of Congress. Members of Congress are very easy to research; candidates and challengers are much harder to research. Hence, while it's true that CongBio is semi-official, to included only that and other semi-official links is tantamount to yet another aspect of incumbency protection. Wikipedia is about equality for the outsiders; so the outsiders are by far more important to link. I add many of these CongLinks -- not 1/6 of the total but perhaps 100 total -- I think the most useful ones are votesmart, fec, ontheissues, and ballotpedia -- I'm looking at these from a political perspective rather than a technical perspective. Certainly it would be only a minor loss to remove IMDB -- although I do add some of those -- because they only apply to the most well-known people. And NNDB I have never understood because it is undocumented. The news ones -- nyt and washpo etc. -- can certainly be done elsewhere, but they are HARD to do elsewhere and having them in CongLinks makes them easier to use. Votesmart too, is notoriously hard to use -- my usual means of access is to go to Wikipedia and use its link, since it's so much more straightforward. In general, we should protect the LESS official links because that helps the outsiders -- the insiders, while it's fine to link to them, don't need Wikipedia as much as the outsiders do. The real disservice to average voters (our intended readers) would be removing the links that are most useful for voters looking for the outsiders (for which I vote the list of 4 above under "most useful"). JesseAlanGordon (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted, again, that the search terms are firmly against the guideline on external links. If there are specific "linkfarms" that exist that should be in the external link section, we should not be using a template to get them there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For the reasons stated by Dru of Id. Orser67 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limit/Shorten - Stick to the core sites only. In terms of the list above, get rid of ballot, cspan/rose, imdb/nndb(both completely worthless for politicians)/worldcat, and bloomberg/guardian/nyt/wsj/washpro. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Shorten Many sites, as listed above, are very important for members as well as certain nonmembers of congress and state legislatures, and this template is great for facilitating their inclusion and ensuring none are forgotten. Several should be removed that are marginally related to the positions. Reywas92Talk 20:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Many Congress members use these templates; and many have them included in their articles that I have edited. It would be a disservice to remove the template, especially while in the midst of so many using it. Daniellagreen (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These sites are essential for many, many statesmen and this template makes it simple to make sure that no important link is missed. The same goes, even more, for contenders for offices, as per JesseAlanGordon. Ithinkicahn (talk) 07:07, 23 January 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:Oklahoma City companies 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oklahoma City companies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, only 3 links Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonable navigation tool. I've expanded this to include twenty links; am expanding further to include the entire state, template should be kept and be moved to "Oklahoma companies". If kept and moved, we'd need to nominate the similar Tulsa-based template for deletion. BusterD (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I reverted your changes. This is a OKC template but you added Tulsa companies to it in order to change the template's purpose. While a TFD is taking place. That's the equivalent of emptying a category while a CFD is under way and that's a no no....William 20:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You were quite correct to revert my expansion past the OKC metro, and for my enthusiasm and misplaced energy I apologize and accept the smell of trout about my head and shoulders. However, before I went way beyond the metro OKC borders, I produced this OKC-only version, which I have restored (minus Hertz). I still believe that a statewide template (like Template:Oregon Companies and Template:Illinois Corporations) is superior to the city based approach. BusterD (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BusterD, Useful template. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:43, 7 January 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:Editnotices/Page/Pokémon X and Y 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Pokémon X and Y (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The game was released 2 1/2 months ago, so there is no chance of any info being "leaked" on it anymore. This editnotice is no longer needed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it doesn't seem like this editnotice should have been created with this wording in the first place. A reliable source can report on rumors, as rumors. Leaks do not indicate that it is not reliable, consider Edward Snowden information is reliable in that it is what Edward Snowden is saying, so if treated as something from Edward Snowden, then it is what it is. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pokemon has a lot of fans, most of which speculate on content. This leaked content can often be inaccurate so in this information about it is best obtained from credible and official sources. Also, there will always be new information about Pokemon, such as game events, and the upcoming, now delayed, release of Pokemon Bank and the Celebi event. To sum, Pokemon is subject to lots of speculation that finds it way on here, that shouldn't be on here.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:18, 3 January 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:NWS-current 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NWS-current (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide and I see no reason to provide a link to current weather information in an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Also per WP:Navbox, templates aren't supposed to have external links....William 00:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NAVBOX is irrelevant here: this isn't a navigation template. There are plenty of templates used for standard formatting of external links, such as {{official}} or {{IMDb title}}. Also, I don't see how WP:NOTTRAVEL applies either: given that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, there's no reason why we can't link to a reputable site for information we don't provide ourselves. --RFBailey (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am pretty sure that providing current weather even in a dedicated external links is not a function of an encyclopedia, we dont provide this sort of information for other locations and external links should add to the article per WP:EL1 - the weather today does not add anything to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This template creates an external link using an ICAO airport code specific to each airport. I believe that a weather link is relevant for an airport article and it does not make Wikipedia into a "travel guide". I feel that it meets the criteria at WP:ELYES for external links that should be included and does not match any criteria at WP:ELNO for links that should not be used. There are also many airport articles with weather links provided by other templates such as {{Can-arpt-wx}} for Canadian airports and the {{US-airport}} series for airports in the United States. If consensus is to delete {{NWS-current}}, then all other templates with airport weather links should also be adjusted accordingly. -- Zyxw (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still fail to see (or perhaps understand) why todays weather is encyclopedic just for airports and certainly in my view fails ELNO#1 that current weather adds to the article. Looking up todays weather is not an encyclopedic function and we are not here to provide a resource for pilots, and I dont see that other "places" provide the same information. I would certainly agree that the other templates should be modified as well. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree with MilborneOne that Wikipedia is not a travel guide and should not include links to external weather, these templates help to stop the spamming of private weather sites. See Talk:METAR#Restoration of link for some discussion of weather spamming. I know there was an earlier discussion where editors were spamming their own sites but I can't find it right now as it was back in 2007. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure we should be providing a link to a weather site to stop other people adding different weather sites doesnt seem to be a valid reason for keeping it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it is a reputable external site about the location in question. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:18, 3 January 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:Mediocre American Man Trilogy 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 Template:Mediocre American Man Trilogy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchorman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Judd Apatow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Adam McKay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This supposed "trilogy" has not been mentioned by cast and crew since 2007 and Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (or anything else for that matter) has never been confirmed to be the third installment. --BenStein69 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the nom is suggesting a merge of these three templates into the first one. —PC-XT+ 04:13, 10 January 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:Shane Filan 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) 21:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shane Filan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN. Just two valid links (not counting back link and "related articles") The Banner talk 22:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:57, 3 January 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:Loose Women 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Loose Women (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to be a list of everyone who has ever been on the programme. Not encyclopedic, and not suitable for a navbox for WP:BIDIRECTIONAL concerns. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've removed the guest and one-off panellists, so now it only contains the regular ones, and I added the list of presenters. Does that help at all? I'm not sure how WP:BIDIRECTIONAL comes into it - that just states that the template should be transcluded on more pages than it currently is. There's already a list of all the panellists - would it be better as a "see also" link in the articles of those listed? –anemoneprojectors– 14:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns here with bidirectionality are akin to those for actors. If we start listing participants in panel/talk shows in navboxes (and reality shows for that matter), then we'll end up with that "candystriping" effect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "candystriping", do you mean lots of different (coloured) navboxes in one article? If that's what you mean, well, that can happen on any page. It's true though, actors shouldn't appear in navboxes about films... –anemoneprojectors– 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 3 January 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:Violence against Muslims 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 relisted on 2014 January 24 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:00, 24 January 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:Inter-American Development Bank 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 replace with succession links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inter-American Development Bank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Just four links. ...William 18:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or replace with simple succession links. Frietjes (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the succession link idea —PC-XT+ 19:45, 7 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_3&oldid=1078574912"