Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 1

August 1Edit

Template:TiHKALEdit

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_17#Template:PiHKAL. Being mentioned in a 1997 book is not a defining characteristic of its members. Members can be linked in the primary article and this navbox should be deleted. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Ping to Izno who participated in the last discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
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:Hot100brasil.comEdit

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. (non-admin closure)Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

superfluous given Special:AbuseFilter/554 Launchballer 20:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

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:Figure skating competition 6.0Edit

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 2020 August 9. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

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:Not in refsEdit

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 to Template:Failed verification. There is clear consensus to merge these templates, as the documentation is identical. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Not in refs with Template:Failed verification.
32 transclusions, practically a duplicate template except for a small text change. The template source also heavily refers to failed verification template. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  Comment. Unclear consensus on the talk page about the relevant change from July 2019: Special:Permalink/962764301#Text should say "failed verification". Not in refs was created in 2014, never redirected. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose although I didn't realize the Not in refs template existed, it's basically what I proposed in the linked discussion. The documentation needs work though. Lizard (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Lizard the Wizard, what is the distinction between these templates? I feel like they are basically the same and would treat them the same if encountered while editing, but I'm not actively working with these templates. --Trialpears (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONSOLIDATE. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - These are two different things. The former, Not in refs, often means that the citation does not support what is written in the text. However, Failed verification can mean, in the visual arts for example, an article might state that XYZ artist's work is in a particular museum collection, but when one searches the collection of that museum, they are not in fact in it. So in the former case it often means that the editor(s) just did not reference the article thoroughly; but in the latter it means that there is in fact false information in the article. I've seen this numerous times in biographies of questionable notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Netherzone, {{Irrelevant citation}} seems to cover your example for not in refs, and does so without being ambiguous in the same way not in refs is. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    If a source is cited saying the work is in the museum, but it seems incorrect, then {{dubious}} can be used. If it's unsourced, and obviously wrong, it can be deleted right away, and preferably corrected with a proper source. Otherwise if there's uncertainty, {{citation needed}} or {{failed verification}} can be added for a short time. I don't think we need a template for "I have confirmed that this unsourced information is definitely false but I'm just going to leave it here", and this one shouldn't be used in that way. --IamNotU (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The two templates use identical documentation, Template:Failed verification/doc, which refers only to the {{Failed verification}} template. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge any differences between the two are too insignificant to warrant keeping them seperate. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge duplicates, the usage instructions and parameters are the same. The text could still be improved. "Failed verification" seems ambiguous. The person who changed it from "not in citation given" (without proper consensus) argued that it means an editor could not verify whether the source contained the information or not. But the usage insructions imply that an editor confirms that the given source does not verify the information. It links to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which describes things not being verifiable at all. "Not in refs" is better, but "refs" may be unclear. Also, information isn't found in the citation itself. Maybe "not in cited source"? --IamNotU (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support if the merge includes changing the text from "failed verification" to "not in citation given". Dan Bloch (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge quite literally a duplicate, with a copy+paste of the documentation for {{Failed verification}} (even the name of the template in the doc hasn't been changed!) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge as essentially the same. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the proposal to merge. The two templates accomplish the same thing. N2e (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree they are redundant, or perceived differences are covered by different templates. --Bsherr (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge These are obvious merge candidates Fiddle Faddle 08:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
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).