Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< November 4 November 6 >

November 5

edit

Template:SBN Mindanao

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. Primefac (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2015 (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:How long ago

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 relist at Nov 22. Primefac (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be deleted for 3 main reasons:

  1. The code is a mess
  2. It doesn't take into account 100- and 400-year leap-year rules
  3. its function is better served by {{For_year_month_day}}, to which reasons 1 and 2 do not apply

A bot could be used to handle current instances of the template's use, and at that point, I wouldn't see any reason to keep this template. Esszet (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Why do we care about 100- and 400-year leap-year rules? This is a userspace template meant to express how long ago it was that you joined Wikipedia; the last non-leap-and-end-of-century year was more than one hundred years before Wikipedia was established, and we have more than eighty years before the next one. The other template is meant for mainspace; having separate templates for separate purposes makes the metadata more clearly separated. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is for that {{User Wikipedian for}} and several others, none of which appear to be based on this one. Its main use appears to be in {{Missing for}} and similar templates, which could easily be edited to use a different age calculation template. Esszet (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2015 (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:Biyi Bandele

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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient links for navigation, best dealt with using a "See also" section. NSH002 (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2015 (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:New Britain Bees

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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox for newly created team. It has links but 1- They're to the team article where there is scarce information, 2- links to rivalries but how is there a basis for a rivalry when a team hasn't started played yet. It is WP:TOOSOON for this navbox. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Almost half of the navbox links are redirects to the main article for a newly franchised minor league team whose notability per WP:ORG and WP:GNG is marginal if not dubious. I would also like to know how a team that has never played a game has two "rivals" listed -- how does that work? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Dirtlawyer1:. The article is about a new team in a pro sports league that has an almost 20 year history. Is the level of ball high enough to be notable. I don't know, there would have to be some discussion and all its team articles to form a consensus. As the league and all its teams have articles at the moment, so should this team....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • William, it is axiomatic that notability is not inherited, so the notability of the other teams in this minor league is not determinative of the notability of the new expansion team. That said, notability is only tangentially at issue in this TfD; the question is does the navbox serve a valid navigational function per the WP:NAVBOX criteria, with multiple redirects to a single article about the expansion team, and two links to other league-member teams who are purported "rivals" even though they have never played the subject team? Considering those facts, I think this should probably be deleted and/or userfied. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (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:Milwaukee Panthers football navbox

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 keep. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are now six or more links in the navbox, and I am striking my "delete" !vote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2015 (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:Primary 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 SNOW keep. There is such a clear an unambiguous consensus that there is no point taking up editors' time any more. It is obvious what the outcome is going to be. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Primary sources with Template:Third-party.
{{Primary sources}} and {{Third-party}} refer to two distinct issues that have the exact same solution: Look for secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

In other words, it is possible to treat {{Primary sources}} by looking for affiliated but secondary sources, but that's a wasted effort that nets the article a {{Third-party}} instead. And vice versa: Looking for primary sources that are independent of the subject is a wasted effort that only gets the {{Third-party}} replaced with a {{Primary sources}}. At the end of the day, an article needs significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Codename Lisa (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The templates signal two distinct problems to the (passive) reader, though: {{Primary sources}} warns about potential OR and notability problems. {{Third-party}} is a hint that the reader might be facing advertising or propaganda. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this discussion would result in a decision to merge, the direction should be to merge Third-party into Primary sources, which is better known. The merger might be a good idea, and I don't think agree with Qwertyus' argument against a merger. Debresser (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having two distinct templates helps keep track of the different problems, both for editors and readers. It is very important that we have proper ways to indicate problems to readers, because a generic message "this article has problems" like Template:Cleanup has isn't going to help. The issues don't have the same cause, effect or implications, and neither do they have the exact same solution (albeit similar solutions). A secondary source doesn't necessarily need to be a third-party source. CFCF 💌 📧 15:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - I concur with @CFCF:, that "A secondary source doesn't necessarily need to be a third-party source". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are different problems, as noted by CFCF. The typical recent-events article is full of primary sources, especially news reports published around the time of the event in question, but they don't generally lack third-party sourcing. Meanwhile, the lack of third-party sourcing is common with articles about companies; it's easy to find articles that cite a company's own "Our Awards" page, which is a secondary source because it postdates the times of the awards in question, but problematic because it's closely related to the subject of the article. Third-party secondary sources will indeed solve both kinds of problem, but the warning message ought to mention one or the other, rather than giving readers the choice between "it's not written by an uninterested party" and "it's not based on earlier work". Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed and "reliable third party secondary sources" would solve either of those problems, or unreliable sources (or indeed lack of sources) and so on until we have just one tag "Improve"... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep tags indicate problems not solutions, so as different problems they aren't redundant. Widefox; talk 23:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep a significant problem with tags is that people want to merge them as "too specific", those that are claimed to be "to general" get deleted, destroying the workflow. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep while solution may be the same for us on the backend, the impact on the viewer is different. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two distinct problems, with two different solutions.50.159.6.134 (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Two distinct problems, even if the solution is the same. Could get confusing otherwise. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. They refer to two different problems. That the issues can be resolved by doing the same thing doesn't matter. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. The request misunderstands the distinct underlying problems addressed by these two distinct tag templates (and this should have been discussed with expert users before opening this discussion, and wasting time). There is clear consensus. Please close this discussion out. [User:Leprof_7272] 73.210.154.39 (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because they are two different problems. Secondary ≠ third-party. Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 06:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - Per Whpq and many others, these are two distinct issues. If necessary, make the documentation of the templates and on Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup clearer for users who may not be familiar with which one to use. Primary sources should refer to things like original documents and records which have not been published or commented on in reliable secondary sources, but on WP it is often used (wrongly) as shorthand for published sources written by the subject or someone closely affiliated to the subject. Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both templates in concurrence with User:CFCF. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 20:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both templates: two vs. three. 333-blue 07:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both templates, they tell readers different things. Pol098 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both The {{Primary sources}} template leads editors to the statement that reliable secondary sources are "generally at least one step removed from an event", therefore editors ought to consider whether the affiliation of secondary source to the primary one is biased, to ensure that they don't get hit with a {{Third-party}} template. I don't agree with the statement in the proposal that: Looking for primary sources that are independent of the subject is a wasted effort that only gets the {{Third-party}} replaced with a {{Primary sources}}. The {{Third-party}} template leads editors to the statement "Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources.", if editors follow that instruction then they won't get hit with a {{Primary sources}} template. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both They are used for two different problems. Secondary sources is not the same as third-party sources. The Banner talk 17:18, 8 November 2015 (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:Region 7 Radio

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) 03:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this template has been nominated for deletion before but this one do not provide useful navigation; only been used in Template:Cebu City Radio. 121.54.54.239 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2015 (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/2015_November_5&oldid=1138533320"