Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 8

< October 7	October 9 >

October 8

Template:Hindu temples in Chandigarh

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) 00:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hindu temples in Chandigarh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains only one item, barely enough for a cat. This navbox is premature. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as premature. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:29, 15 October 2011 (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:Chris Crocker

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) 23:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chris Crocker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An artist with only one album and no songs with articles doesn't need a navbox yet. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as premature. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2011 (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.

Various NYC Subway service templates

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, after substitution on the project page Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCS 36th Street local (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYCS Fourth DeKalb local (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYCS Broadway local night (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYCS DeKalb tunnel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYCS DeKalb bridge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYCS Concourse south express (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYCS Eighth center local night (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYCS Fulton east express (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYCS Queens local night (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYCS Queens Plaza local (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYCS Broadway-Seventh north express (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYCS Broadway-Seventh south local day (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These are not used on any station/service/neighborhood articles, only on the project page that lists them all. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was willing to consider deleting them, but I could've sworn I saw at least one of them used somewhere else. Nevertheless, used on the project page is still use, as far as I'm concerned. If we don't have these templates on the existing pages, what do we used as a substitute? ----04:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanTD (talk • contribs)

The use under the project page is presumably immutable. As such there's no reason to use templates when text will do, and they can all easily be substituted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even as the original nominator, I strongly oppose substitution, especially in the article space. The purpose of these templates is to make service changes easier, substituting defeats that purpose. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Substitution is the only way to retain the content if these templates are deleted. The project page which currently transcludes them would consist of an empty table were they simply to be deleted. I only brought up substitution on the understanding that you weren't looking for that page to be deleted in turn: obviously if that were the case then there would be no need for substitution here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting the ones listed is fine, but we must not substiute the other ones that have usages. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:33, 14 October 2011 (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:Dukebox

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 merge with article, clearly not following current policy which discourages single use templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This navbox template appears to be intended as a single-use template thereby nullifying its reason to exist. It packages four other navboxes and three succession boxes. A powerful instrument of clutter indeed. Yikes. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this is single-use, substitution is obviously the right answer here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nice intention, but failed execution. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even sure how this would be used since there is no single page that would be on all 4 navboxes and all three succession boxes. Succession boxes for National Champs are redundant anyway since there is an NCAA champs navbox. (just thought I'd throw that one in there) Rikster2 (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2011 (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:VPCnom/intro

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) 23:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VPCnom/intro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template used by the Wikipedia:Valued Pictures project, which has now been shut down. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete project shutdownCurb Chain (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2011 (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:Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:TCREEP, I don't believe we make navboxes for every ministry there is, in fact I haven't seen them for any other ministry at the provincial or federal level. 117Avenue (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2011 (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:Military ranks of Finland

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) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military ranks of Finland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template Bulwersator (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, already well represented in Finnish military ranks. Frietjes (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2011 (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:Most intense landfalling Pacific hurricanes

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 keep or rather withdrawn Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Most intense landfalling Pacific hurricanes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template has two major problems. First, the source in question doesn't list the actual hurricanes' landfall. They list a point every 6 hours, so it does a lot of assuming (which I'll admit I did, since I created the template). Secondly, even if the source were to hypothetically list the data, it would be slightly WP:OR to list them in any particularly order. That is because of the nature of the source, which is a complete list of data points for every single tropical cyclone in the Pacific Ocean. It is difficult to find any particular storm, let alone any order of how strong they were at landfall. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw this TFD, per below. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Set a qualifier. The NHC mentions when storms made landfall in during TCR's so we should IMO source them. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if you cite a TCR, that wouldn't prove that no other storms were any higher. Not to mention, NHC's TCR's only go back to 1988. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think its a good thing to have as long as all the issues it may or may not have are fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it can't be fixed. It's using a faulty source that is near impossible to verify. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Somebody can find a solution to the problem... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm content with how YE fixed the template up. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2011 (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:MisleadingNameLink

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another unnecessary feature-creep kind of template that allows editors to be passive-aggressive rather than bold. If a link is pointing to the wrong article, then that needs to get fixed. It takes no time at all to find the right article or simply remove the link than to mess around with a pointless tag, and pass the buck onto someone else. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added |type=inline to the {{tfd}} template to follow the listing instructions, because this is an inline template. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 02:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like with {{disambiguation needed}}, sometimes it isn't always evident which person the link should be pointing to. Although I'd make it more generic ("Link points to wrong article") so that it can be applicable in all cases where a link points to the wrong article, instead of just names. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 07:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Getting past the epithet-laden language, this template is not "unnecessary", and the nominator's argument is basically to know better than they do how others should go about their work. For example, on say Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/DNB_Epitome_35, typical of lists used by "missing article" projects, there are large numbers of misleading blue links. I or anyone else engaged on such work should be able to add {{mnl}} in order to do the bulk maintenance work of tagging a list like this. No need to bring phrases like "passive-aggressive" here, as if a tag needs to imply an attitude. The rationale for deletion is simply too prescriptive and generalises too broadly. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In articlespace this is redundant to {{disambiguation needed}} in the best case, and (as the nominator suggested) passive-aggressive in the worst ("I know this link is outright broken, but that's not my problem"). Nobody should be leaving broken links in articles when editing articles. In projectspace, as Charles Matthews suggests, this seems to be part of a valid workflow. That suggests that limiting this to projectspace is the correct answer here. Regarding Ten Pound Hammer's argument that it should be broadened to {{misleading link}} or the like, that only deepens the problem when used in articlespace IMO. It is not necessary to have inline cleanup tags for every possible problem we have with articles: in some cases the correct action is to Just Do It. The alternative is to have situation's^{[misplaced apostrophe]} in which artecles^{[misspelling]} are litteref^[typo] with tags for errors so trivial to fix that tagging them makes them worse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, John Smith^{[disambiguation needed]} is not the same as [[John Smith (explorer)|John Smith]]{{mnl}}, and neither of those taggings need be considered redundant. If it is clear that the link to John Smith (explorer) is wrong (for example the dates are impossible), it is not necessarily the case that any immediate improvement can be made casually. Dab work is serious, given that a link pointing to a wrong page is actually a mistake in the encyclopedia. Please show a little respect for it and don't assume it is "trivial" in the worst case. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the time one has discovered that a link goes to the wrong article, one is already 50% of the way to resolving the problem: find the base page name from the article one was sent to, look there for pointers (such as a hatnote or other disambiguation link) and either point the original link to the correct page or delete / rework the link text. Where one is doing nothing but checking if links work, such as on a project page, this may be too much to ask of an editor on every occasion, but it is an extremely straightforward task if one is simply looking to improve an article one has stumbled upon. As I say, I can see the point of this tag where one's workflow is solely related to checking that links point where they should, but not on articlespace where, in the worst case, this is trivially fixed in every situation just by delinking the text (indeed, delinking and putting a {{who}} in would be a drop-in replacement). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking is the wrong solution, isn't it? Someone else then adds a link in a drive-by fashion, and the problem likely returns. Anyway we need redlinks added by whatever means. I've read nothing here to convince me that there is anything wrong with the template that cannot be fixed by documentation, with some deprecation if required, in our "polite" mode: if you are using this template, please consider case-by-case whether it wouldn't be better to sort out the issue. Then anyone who overuses the template can be asked to look at that. There are valid uses for this thing. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "drive-by addition" is a problem here. That would be no different from any other broken edit, and that's what the undo button is for. Nor do we "need redlinks added by whatever means", especially when it comes to names: the vast majority of mankind is not going to get an article here, and we do not (and should not) encourage editors to simply redlink every name they come across. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case I see the whole line of reasoning as unwiki-like. Surely templates may be wrongly used: more or less anything might. When a template has a legitimate use, as this one does, there is no real call to delete it, just in case it might be used in other ways. We are supposed to trust people more than that, in fact. If editors are passive-aggressive, I tell them to stop, rather than try to delete a tag. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I notice some people are saying that uses in article-space are trivial to fix instead of tag. If that is the case, it should be trivial to fix the instances that are currently tagged. Those articles are:
James City County, Virginia, Christian mortalism, Wraysbury, Children of Albion: Poetry of the Underground in Britain, List of religious leaders in 1220, Office of Works, Richard Sibbes, List of Williams College people, Thomas Pope, Horace Twiss, Cambridge University (UK Parliament constituency), Alexander Hyde, Ancient Diocese of Noyon, William Dell, Chronological list of saints and blesseds in the 17th century, Peter Baro, Tulane Green Wave baseball, Sidrach Simpson, Walter Cradock, Benjamin Lany, Erasmus Earle, John Webster (minister), William Temple (logician), History of the Jamestown Settlement (1607–1699), Christopher Feake, Sir John Forster, Roger Goad, Thomas Pierce, Francis Mason (archdeacon), David Jennings (tutor), Anthony Hammond, Thomas Ridgeway, 1st Earl of Londonderry, Charles Varlo, Caleb Fleming
If it is possible to fix all those links, then I could support this template being used only for project lists (n.b. just delinking is the wrong approach in many cases, usually when the link is for a historical figure that should eventually have an article). However, if those links are indeed difficult to fix, then there is clearly a use for this template, regardless of whether it should be folded into a similar template using a parameter of some sort. Is anyone willing to take on this challenge and actually look at how the template is being used? Not just a few samples, but all of them, as the claim is that this is "an extremely straightforward task". Having looked at a few of them, I disagree with that assessment. It takes time to accurately verify whether the link in History of the Jamestown Settlement (1607–1699) to John Wolstenholme should in fact be to Sir John Wolstenholme, 1st Baronet. Similarly for Sidrach Simpson, the link to George Griffith should presumably be to George Griffith (bishop), but changing links like this is not a trivial business and if done wrong it risks compounding the initial error. Better to have tags to leave matters like this to those willing to spend the time to make sure the links are correct. Having said that, I did remove this link (though what if someone puts it back without checking?). And another example is List of Williams College people which at some point had a link for Keith Griffin (American football player), when the link should be to an article on this professor and economist. I would hope that someone would create an article on the latter at some point, but is the answer just to delink or to try and guess what the red-link would be (presumably Keith Griffin (economist))? Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the instances of this tag in the article namespace have now been repaired. There should now be no issue with your supporting this template's being used only for project lists. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for doing that. Though I disagree with some of the delinking (you delinked 'George Griffith' when I suggested George Griffith (bishop) above), and some of those may one day be articles. There really does need to be a way to tag non-linked checked terms to distinguish them from non-linked, non-checked terms, as it is quite likely that many editors will attempt to link those names, and go through exactly the same checking as you did, only to conclude that the name shouldn't be linked. Because checking something and then doing nothing (in this case, not linking) is a silent action, it leads to immense duplication of effort. Is there a way to tag names in articles with "no article exists as of [date]"? That would be really helpful and people could then concentrate on checking name links that hadn't previously been checked (silently) by someone else, plus checking old instances where an article might have since been created. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually what has been done on Walter Cradock rather proves my point, I'd say. The "easy" disambiguation to Richard Symonds (diarist) is actually wrong: that Richard Symonds was a royalist. The right answer is the Richard Symonds (born 1609, died in or after 1658), who was an Independent minister, and therefore a parliamentarian. (Also notable: both these people are in the ODNB.) The supposed correction has introduced a mistake in the encyclopedia that might not be caught for years. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is mainly useful when the "correct" target article doesn't exist yet. Since MOS:DABRL is fervently adhered to, a template like this one is the obvious interim (between link creation and article creation) solution to the problem. Deryck C. 09:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that this template was used in articles, not dab pages. MOS:DABRL refers only to redlinks on disambiguation pages. Nothing there is preventing you from taking an obviously erroneous link in an article and changing it to be red to fix the problem and then piping it. Thus if John Doe isn't what you're looking for, you can always link to the right John Doe as John Doe (correct person) and then pipe it to make John Doe. Do that instead of tagging it. Don't leave messes on Wikipedia for other people to clean up. Boldly clean the stuff up yourself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Confusing "sofixit" with what WP:BOLD actually says can be wrong, and this is a case: "If you see something that can be improved, improve it!" is fine, "If you see something that can be might be an improvement, hope for the best" isn't too responsible. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that people here forget the purpose here: To write a readable encyclopedia. In-text templates such as this one serve little purpose other than to distract the reader and contribute to drive-by tagging. It takes less effort to simply unlink the bad link than to use this template. It takes only slightly more effort to find the rightful target. Gigs (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite untrue, that. See the example I've just given. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete has redundant with {{disambiguation needed}} and other possible solutions for misleading links. First, from the editor who casually found a misleading link point of view: One, User:SchuminWeb above pointed one solution. Two, User:Charles_Matthews also pointed one, even if not intentionally, that is, if you know [[John Smith (explorer)]] is wrong then go for [[John Smith]]{{dn}}! I'd say both a are easier than memorizing yet another template. For editors fixing links, the situations (misleading link/needs dab) are close enough, if you can and want to fix one, you likely can and want to fix the other. For readers, it is much better to have an ambiguous link opr no link (red or none) than a link pointing to a article which has no relation the current one. - Nabla (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the example of Keith Griffin this strategy does not work. Sure of there's a dab page then dn is obvious, but the majoriy of incorrect links will be undisambiguated names. Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 10 October 2011 (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) 00:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep this link its true mlb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.192.225 (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think tagging something simply to say it points to the wrong person is pointless when we have {{failed verification}}, {{cn}}, and {{quote needed}}.Curb Chain (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those all apply to external links. This is for internal links. Rich Farmbrough, 01:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Another of the "trivial" fixes the proposer made was to remove the link in James_City_County,_Virginia#Wolstenholme_Towne.2C_Carter.27s_Grove_Plantation - it was fairly easy to find the correct link, with a little checking around. This is exactly what the template is for, the fixer didn't have time or inclination to fix it properly, so it should be tagged, that way someone else can fix it (in this case me). Simply de-linking it is more lazy than tagging it. And maybe that's why people like deleting stuff - problem invisible = problem solved. Whereas clean up, fact checking and referencing are time consuming and that's not the instant gratification people want. It still takes longer to get the good result with these strategies, than with more wiki-like strategies. Rich Farmbrough, 01:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Possibly reword. It is useful and important, as other keep voters have stated, and acts as a warning to readers that a link is known to be incorrect. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2011 (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.