Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 18 August 20 >

August 19 edit

Template:UQ Faculties 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) 00:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, all articles linked have been afd'ed or redirected Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2016 (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:Needs English sources 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) 20:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No article needs sources in English. —S Marshall T/C 20:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep On a Wikipedia whose audience is expected to be English speaking, you see no value in posting a maintenance tag suggesting that articles are more useful if their sources are also in the one language that this Wikipedia's users are assumed to understand? Largoplazo (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I'm afraid the idea that articles "need English sources" is contrary to the longstanding consensus on a core policy, so this template cannot possibly be kept in its current form.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't engage in a circular argument. I understand thoroughly, and the language of the template reflects this, that English sources aren't needed for verifiability, which is the core policy about which I understand you to be speaking. I've already responded to that. As I have pointed out, verifiability isn't the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia. English sources are valuable for reasons other than verifiablity. So your argument has been addressed—unless I'm misunderstanding your point and you are now trying to explain that there is a longstanding consensus against improving the usefulness of Wikipedia articles. Largoplazo (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The very title of the template is in contradiction to our verifiability policy, which the template creator changed to encourage the disfigurement of articles with this template. As S Marshall said, no article needs English sources, so, by definition, this template is applicable to no article and so should be deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it your position that verifiability is the only criterion for judging anything on Wikipedia, and that what is needed to make an article more useful is irrelevant? It should be understood that sources don't only serve the purpose of verifying article content and establishing notability. They also add value to the content in Wikipedia's articles, which are intended to condense information available elsewhere, while guiding readers to the more extensive and detailed source material found externally. In order to serve that purpose for the broadest possible span of English Wikipedia users, sources in English are needed. Largoplazo (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template correctly says that "While non-English sources are valid for purposes of verification and for demonstrating notability, English sources of equal quality and relevance are generally preferred" which is almost directly from WP:NONENG. It seems like a useful template to me. I have certainly seen translated articles where this template might have been useful in attracting editors to improve the references. If the only issue is the "Needs" in the name of the template then we can simply rename it for clarity. How about "English sources preferred" instead? Meters (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point taken, and I had thought it through that far when I created the template, I might have come up with a more precise wording. But we already have templates by the names of {{Historical information needed}} and {{ISSN-needed}}. In neither case is the requested information needed, in the sense that its absence constitutes a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, let alone threatening the article's continued existence. How fussy do we really need to be over the exact names we give templates, which, ideally, should communicate their point as tersely as possible for the benefit of editors looking to tag articles, as long as the message that the template conveys is clear and accurate?Largoplazo (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)It's more nuanced than that, though. Per longstanding consensus on WP:V, a good German source is preferred over an okay English source, so "English sources preferred" doesn't capture it either.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & IP, above. I also note that we managed quite well without this template, until its very recent creation, last month. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one should ever add new and useful tools to Wikipedia other than in cases where Wikipedia is "managing" abysmally? Largoplazo (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're starting to hector. Desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I am and, having just seen your comment I get your point. Sorry, I'm just frustrated because there are so many maintenance templates that exist to elicit improvements beyond those that are absolutely necessary to allow an article to remain in existence, and so I'm truly confused by my failure to get that point across here amid people whose responses indicate an impression that maintenance templates exist only to fix problems that might cause an article to get deleted. Largoplazo (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Largoplazo and Meters. Per WP:NONENG, non-English sources are acceptable if accompanied by a translated quote (!), though English sources of equal quality and relevance are generally preferred. There is also a need for this template. While noone objects to the occasional use of high-quality foreign language sources, in certain areas we're lavished by masses of untranslated low-to-medium-quality sources that would be perfectly replaceable even by higher quality English ones. In order to ensure article quality, we need to signal that there is a need to cleanup and replace these sources or have them translated. Existing templates don't sufficiently cover this task, as it regularly requires proficiency in a particular foreign language.
    Renaming the template to Template:English sources preferred would be acceptable, but IMO not necessarily better. As a last resort, it might be renamed to Template:English sources requested in line with {{Audio requested}} or {{Infobox requested}}, and converted into a talk page template – it's not the same thing though, as we're touching verifiability issues here. --PanchoS (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, WP:NONENG does not say that non-English sources are only acceptable if accompanied by a translated quote, or anything that could possibly be interpreted in that way. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the wording of the template is technically within the wording of the venerability policy, disfiguring the article with a maintenance template creates an indelible implication that something is wrong with an article that is only supported by non-English sources. This template has the potential to encourage editors to replace superior foreign-language sources with inferior English-language sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording clearly states that non-English sources are acceptable and that only English sources of equal quality and relevance are preferred.
    Reliance on untranslated Turkish-language sources that are unintelligible for most other Wikipedia editors, for example contributed to the situation that the article of a then–government minister, now prime minister of Turkey, Binali Yıldırım, presented a mere rumour of his alleged Kurdish origin as a fact, which constitutes a sensible issue in Turkish politics and clearly violating WP:BLP. For the very same reason, this incorrect information went unnoticed and/or unchallenged over the course of several years.
    Cherry-picked high-quality sources will always be welcome, but fact is that we're simply not prepared to cope with masses of foreign-language sources, and with increasing use of the article translation feature, the problem will only become graver. --PanchoS (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that this view is contrary to longstanding consensus on a core policy page. Reliable foreign-language sources are welcome on en.wiki, and they always have been.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict with S Marshall above) I don't believe that the misuse of sources is any more prevalent with sources in other languages than with English ones. The problem in the case that you outline is the misuse of sources, not their language. It is much easier for editors to check online sources than offline ones, but we don't disfigure articles with templates suggesting that online sources should be added. At the English Wikipedia we are in a better position than most others, because we have lots of editors who are native speakers, or have a good reading knowledge, of other languages. That is certainly the case with Turkish, and with Polish and Persian, which are the languages involved in the cases that led me to spot the change to verifiability policy encouraging the use of this template. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Superfluous and potentially misleading, implying that the article concerned is somehow not sufficiently fit for consumption. Articles may be more user-friendy with English sources but there is no sense in which they 'need' them to be acceptable.--Smerus (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles written with poor grammar don't need to be written with better grammar, yet we have maintenance templates for copyediting, correct? Largoplazo (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being written with poor grammar is something wrong with an article, but having only non-English sources is not, so that analogy doesn't hold. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being written with poor grammar doesn't make it "not sufficiently fit for consumption", so, in addressing your comment as you wrote it, the analogy did hold. Largoplazo (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adding tags does not solve problems, and WP:RS is the place to argue about what kinds of sources are needed. Naturally better sources should be added to an article, and anyone doing that does not need a tag to remind them that this is the English Wikipedia. English sources are not required—a Latin source locked in a Vatican library and available only to accredited researchers is a good source, and editors should not be encouraged to add a pointless tag that a link to a convenient website with an English translation would be handy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, WP:V already says, "However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." So I don't have to argue this point. Largoplazo (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We use Japanese sources all the time for anime/manga articles, if the source is reliable then it is useful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – People seem to be talking past one another. Non-English sources are perfectly fine for the purposes of verifiability, and not all articles need English sources, because they may not be available. Tjioeng Wanara, for example, is a recent FA based entirely on non-English sources. However, for a large number of articles, there are equal-quality English sources available to use; using English sources significantly impacts one's ability to verify information in certain subject areas. The tag is not a blanket prohibition on non-English sources, nor is it to be used on articles based largely on non-English sources which would suffer in quality if downgraded to English sources. If the quality and coverage of foreign-language sources and English sources are equal, however, such as in the case of most major foreign leaders, towns, or events, English sources should be preferred over foreign-language ones. Even if you believe there are few such cases, the tag is perfectly fine; just remove it from pages where it doesn't belong, and come to consensus on talk if there is disagreement. —0xF8E8 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2016 (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:Librivox 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) 00:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as deprecated; and unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 19 August 2016 (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:Lt user 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 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 19 August 2016 (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:Genukiary 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 2016 August 27. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:20, 27 August 2016 (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).

Op zoek naar 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) 00:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating all these for deletion as they consist of mostly redlinks. There is a longstanding consensus that cast and crew should not be included in these navboxes, so when hosts/judges/panel are removed, most of them would consist of only redlinks. The exceptions being Template:Op zoek naar... (Belgium), whose two links are in the related Template:Andrew Lloyd Webber musical revival search, and Template:Op zoek naar Maria, for whom one contestant (whose notability is questionable) has an article, but that could also be placed in Template:Andrew Lloyd Webber musical revival search if necessary. anemoneprojectors 16:20, 19 August 2016 (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:Newsbank 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) 18:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External use template that simply builds a URL, with no text display. Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 19 August 2016 (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:MyB 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 merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:MyB with Template:MycoBank.

Both are external link templates, with link URLs starting http://www.mycobank.org/MycoTaxo.aspx?Link=T&Rec= Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 19 August 2016 (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:MIA name 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) 00:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link templates, requiring the full target URL as a parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 19 August 2016 (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:Martialinfo 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) 20:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use external link template, with no other links to the target site. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 19 August 2016 (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:Cite mcra 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 withdrawn by nom Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment, I converted about 35 uses of the external link to use this citation template instead, so now it is used. the site looks very useful, so I am inclined to keep the template and add it to more cave articles. Frietjes (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2016 (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:Multiple Olympic Teams 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) 20:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be trying to give information rather than aid navigation. The navigation it does provide is already provided by Template:Nations at the Olympics, so could probably be deleted under WP:CSD#T3, but thought I'd seek a wider opinion. Fails a number of points at WP:NAVBOX. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2016 (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:Valve games 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 2016 August 27. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:12, 27 August 2016 (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:Valve technology 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 2016 August 27. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:13, 27 August 2016 (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:Egyptian Premier League seasons 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) 20:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With this template (Template:Egyptian Premier League) i don't think that there's any use of it. Ben5218 (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2016 (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:Egyptian Premier League teamlist 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) 20:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With this template (Template:Egyptian Premier League) i don't think that there's any use of it. Ben5218 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2016 (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/2016_August_19&oldid=1138533153"