Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< April 6 April 8 >

April 7

edit

Template:Members of the 1921 Legislative Council of Ceylon

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2022 April 14. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:48, 14 April 2022 (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:Symphyotrichum subgenus Astropolium cladogram

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused genus/species diagram chart. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Template creator here. Looks like I created it and haven't used it. Delete it and whenever I get into that again, I can recreate it or someone else can if it turns out to be useful. Thanks for the notice! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2022 (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:Somerset districts map

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2022 (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:Thessaloniki Metro geolocations

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused railway template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2022 (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).
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused link template to the HK Stock Exchange. Template:Hong Kong Stock Exchange is used and seems to be preferable regardless of the shortcomings this template was created to circumvent. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2022 (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:Population map of Europe

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 22:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map of European populations. Does nothing but link to the countries' articles with the display of the population numbers which are outdated. No clear value in keeping. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2022 (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:PLAGF (1955-1965) Enlisted personnel

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused military rank templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2022 (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:Needdevanagari

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 19:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete template, long been decrepecated, few pages use it. Those can be substed and the template deleted. Rlink2 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not subst per the RfC, this should not be used, so should be de-transcluded -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a maintenance template asking for the addition of Devanagari text to an article. The bit in the documentation saying it's deprecated is based on WP:INDICSCRIPT: the guideline that articles related to India should not contain native scripts in their lede sections or infoboxes. One doesn't follow from the other. Articles on certain topics (like languages or written works) are explicitly exempt, while any India-related article can still contain Devanagari (or other scripts) in the sections below the lede. Also, Devanagari is not restricted to India: it's the most widely used script in Nepal (where it's commonly included in articles) and it may still freely be used on articles that are India-related but fall primarily within the scope of another wikiproject (most visibly, ones about Buddhism, where it's commonly used within this infobox). The template can be used appropriately, provided people are interested in doing so. – Uanfala (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2022 (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).
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or documentation. Mostly red links. It is unclear what this navbox is for. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the red links are to articles moved to draftspace going through AFC. I believe within a year all but Yamai national theory will be approved, and have edited the template to reflect this. Ths template would be put at the bottom of articles related to the Yamatai kingdom, and may be expanded with other articles related to it such as Wakoku in the future MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only on three pages and four links counting the title link. Not enough per NENAN. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2022 (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:Sbirthdecade

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 03:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template appears to have been broken (unclosed parameter syntax) since its creation in 2005, and checking a random birth-decade category shows that they seem to be using {{Birth decade category header}} instead. 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy1000 01:36, 7 April 2022 (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:Sihanouk children

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 03:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article content single use template. Izno (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2022 (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:Batwoman (TV series)

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a year later and the template has nothing to add that isn't listed at Template:Arrowverse. The other TV series have templates because they have multiple episode articles, while Batwoman currently does not. Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2022 (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:Thessaloniki Metro image map

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 19:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An imagemap which is only used at Thessaloniki Metro. Subst there and delete the template. Gonnym (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2022 (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).
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template is fundamentally at odds with WP:EL, particularly the call to limit links and not include links which would duplicate information which would be in an article if it would be a featured article. Given most of those links are to databases or other such routine compilations (and, that in many cases, there are many potential duplicates for each sport), and that on top of that there is a reliance on Wikidata (which is not a good thing for many reasons, including the difficulty in tracing edits across the edit history), there really isn't a solution but to delete this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm no whizz at coding templates, but would it be possible edit it in such a way as to avoid the problem? Ideally that would be automatic - like, detecting if the target of an EL is already on the page, and not adding a link if so - but I guess it could be a manual field that allows you to tell it not to include specific links? Girth Summit (blether) 17:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: The template can't use stuff which is not within it. It can detect if there are multiple Wikidata parameters, and maybe select only one (although, given the number of possible WD parameters, that is a hell of a lot of if-then logic to do to pick only the most pertinent one), but it can't look at the contents of the whole page and pick only the links that are not included (and even then, that wouldn't be that efficient to code - you'd need to have it look at the whole text to see if any substring within it matches the relevant link - and then repeat that for each other one: something which is simply not practical). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose OP dug themselves into a corner at WP:ANI, and when no one would act on their complaints, they took to TfD to make their point. This is a well-used template, and it's doing lots of good work on a lot of articles. The OP found one case where (arguably) it might have been inappropriate, and now because we didn't sanction someone they were in an edit war with over the use of the template, they're trying a different tactic. I suggest a speedy close, and a healthy dose of WP:TROUT and we should all drop this mess and get on with better things. --Jayron32 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It disappointing to see an administrator completely ignore the validity of the nomination (and the obvious frustration being experienced by the nom) and invite a bad faith pile on like this. RC simply needs/needed to be calmly advised to lay off the bludgeoning and badgering. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What a textbook example of how not to WP:AGF. Your argument is a classic ad hominem and merits no further reply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As for "one case", here are 1, 2, 3 (picked at random from the first page of "What links here" results) examples which have the exact same issues (the footballer's the worst example, but the other ones are also not shining examples of how to follow WP:EL). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first word of AGF is "assume" which means to act without evidence. There's pages of evidence in your own statements, in your own words, at ANI. There's no assumptions here.--Jayron32 18:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That this template fundamentally is incompatible with WP:EL has nothing to do with that, and your argument remains an ad hominem which entirely ignores the issues. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no issues. You got in an argument with somebody, and have made mountains out of molehills, and now your trying to drag me into it as well. No wonder people don't like to interact with you. I've had about 5 minutes of conversation with you here and at ANI over my entire Wikipedia career, and it has been a wholly unpleasant experience. I don't think I'll be seeking out any more of it. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 18:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think stuff like having over a dozen different and redundant external links is not an issue, you're entirely free to think so. Doesn't make you right, or your ad hominems valid arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The claims of forum-shopping are also at best misleading, since there were many people at ANI who specifically recommended a TfD for this particular issue... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unless a solution bcan be found to limit its impact. It's preferable that that it's handle on Wikipedia rather than wikidata. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: wouldn't it make more sense for this kind of template to operate similarly to authority control? The case which led to this, Emma Hinze, has five links, and I could imagine some articles having more. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether we should/shouldn't include those links, but it does seems smart to display this kind of collection of Wikidata-derived identifiers in a more standardized way (i.e. apart from the typical ELs, as we do with authority control), no? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the exact same reasons Jayron32 stated. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agreeing with Jayron32 and Lugnuts. Best regards Migrant (talk – contribs) 20:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations of bad faith (which is what Jayron's vote is) are not valid arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion of a template with 47,000 transclusions before a discussion on the template's talk page about how to modify this template to help it comply with our guidelines and policies. See also WP:TFD#REASONS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that by the very nature of it, being an indiscriminate aggregation of external links (most of which would not be appropriate external links even if there weren't a dozen of them), this template fails WP:LINKFARM, and it is not something that can be addressed through editing it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The only use I have ever had for this template is getting a list of sources to use for an article, and while it is useful for that purpose it does mean that it is incompatible with WP:ELNO #1. I would support keeping it if it was converted to a template that can only be used on talk pages. BilledMammal (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Many sports athletes stub-articles here (Category:Stub-Class biography (sports and games) articles – contains more than 446,000 sports biographies) in EN:WP have few sources and this template helps to bring external sources from another wiki-activity than in this wikipedia-language version and would easier help expanding these sports athletes biographies. That is also a reason why I'm opposing this deletion. Best regards Migrant (talk – contribs) 23:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:ELNO #1, sites that repeat information that is already or should be in the article should not be in external links; if you see the main use of this source as being providing resources for expanding the article then that would support deletion. However, it would also suggest that my alternative proposal, of making it a template that can only be used on talk pages, would be suitable - could you support that? BilledMammal (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix the problem. There seems to have been no discussion (that I can see) to set criteria for inclusion when creating this template and as a result, it is bloated and currently does a better job of spamming the external links section with links that would routinely be removed than providing a convenient method of adding a standard set of good ELs. The solution is to have the discussion and severely reduce the list of included links. Alternatively, as above, if the purpose is to provide potential sources, it should be used on the talk page, not the article itself. wjematherplease leave a message... 23:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, it's not fixable, because Wikidata doesn't consider it a problem. And we cannot impose en.wiki's standard on external links to Wikidata without their agreement and consent. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would contest the it is fixable because the template controls which links are imported. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Joseph2302 there is no need to "impose en.wiki's standard on external links to Wikidata" because only links on the whitelist at Module:External links/conf/Sports are pulled from Wikidata by the template. A discussion at Template talk:Sports links#Links to include has been started about refining the current list. Letcord (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above, quite widely used, so would be much better to reach a consensus and limit what links are on it. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As stated above, this template is used over a lot of articles. Although I would be open to the idea of a discussion about which links should be included and which shouldn't. Paulpat99 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "it's used a lot" is a valid reason to keep. BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've opened a discussion on what links to include. Looking at the small sampling of ones that we will need to consider, I don't believe we can improve this template to the point where it is suitable for use in article space, but I am happy to work with those willing to try. BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Wikidata is the most extensive repository of external links and identifiers in existence, and has many built-in tools that allow for maintenance of them as a whole. It is logical then that Wikipedia would (and does) delegate the storage of those it uses to Wikidata, just as it does interwiki links. The "difficulty in tracing edits across the edit history" is nonexistent because Wikidata edits can be seen from watchlists on Wikipedia, and Wikidata items have their own edit histories that can be read through. As for the merits of this specific template, if there are concerns about some of the external links it currently pulls from Wikidata being low quality, then discussions can be had to remove them from Module:External links/conf/Sports. If the concern is that too many will be pulled (current limit 10), then line 927 of Module:External links can be changed. Letcord (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've encountered this template before: it was linking to resources that had moved or been deleted, and to resources that cited Wikipedia itself as one of their sources. Wikidata amassing such URLs may or may not be useful in the grand scheme of things; presumably that project has editors who can update outdated links or supply archived versions in a meaningfully systematic way, according to the purpose of that site (which includes providing sources where there is no Wikipedia article in a user's language). But such outdated and non-useful links, including the citogenesis ones, degrade our articles rather than improving them, and we should be citing useful databases as references, not linking to them at the bottom of the article; to do otherwise violates WP:V and allows the article to drift from what its sources support. So it isn't even useful to have that template there. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/keep Jayron32 sums up the situation very aptly. This is a classic case of a Wikipedian behaving badly, and we ought not to reward them by rushing to delete a heavily-used template. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only is that not a valid keep argument (it's an ad hominem), but even the ad hominem lacks any substance, and is purely an accusation of bad faith based on spurious dot-connecting and fabricated motivations which have no grounding in reality (see [2] for an example of a rebuttal), much less Wikipedia policy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments both in this thread and at ANI paint a very clear picture of your unwillingness to accept any criticism of your behavior. Good luck with the course that you have chosen. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is comments like Jayron's pointed invective - and those others which are enabling such misbehaviour - and their accusations which are entirely contrary to evidence (the claim that this TfD is forum-shopping when people at ANI specifically said this was an issue for TfD would be very laughable, if it were not a clear bad-faith accusation from someone who should know better) which paint a very clear picture. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My decision to !vote on your proposal does not obligate me to argue with you. Your inability to accept legitimate criticism of your behavior is your problem, not mine. Stop wasting my time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of my comments asked a question or required an answer: if you consider your replies a waste of time, that is your own decision. And if we're speaking of being "obligated" to do something, neither were you obligated to post accusations of bad faith as justification, yet you chose to do so. You can't have the cake and eat it too; you can't engage in foul play and then complain when you get called out on it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Au contraire, you can't behave badly (which you have, repeatedly) and then complain when somebody points it out. You have restored to accusations of incivility/ad hominem because you can't refute the substance of the criticism leveled against you. The ANI thread speaks for itself. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the one running around accusing others of forum-shopping or trolling. Anyway, even if you were right, if you want to stir up more drama, that should be at the dramaboard: I obviously don't need to give you any directions on where to find that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The trolling 'accusation' was directed at someone else, and I never said that I wanted to stir up drama. I've said my piece in good faith and am quite content to leave it at that. We are clearly at an impasse and continuing to bicker back and forth will get neither of us anywhere. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Heavily used template. "at odds with WP:EL, particularly the call to limit links and not include links which would duplicate information which would be in an article if it would be a featured article" – totally not true, written without any knowledge and understanding. For runners there are specialist databases for example, it is very hard to specify each for every one, but on Wikidata it can be processed in batches. That is true that template has it problems, however, but anyway it can not be deleted. Lorem333Ipsum (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The template being heavily used doesn't mean it should be kept. The canonical counter-argument is the If your friends jumped off a bridge/cliff, would you follow them? rhetorical question - which correctly shows that argument to be an ad populum. Wikipedia is not a link farm. I can't think of an example of where including more than one or two database links would be pertinent (simply because linking the most comprehensive one should suffice, and because of WP:ELNO no. 1). Simply because there are "batches" of those does not mean that a template listing those is appropriate. If the most recorded classical composer can do with just a few links for that (none of which are duplicative), surely your mundane sportspersons who everybody's forgotten don't need more than that, and they don't need an indiscriminate aggregator of a template for that either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What you write about is quite the other thing, i.e. some people add too much links to Wikidata (with sport-databases). It is useless, add and acts for nothing but at the end of the day those databases show up at the template results. So as I wrote your point was bad but template has its problem - like everything in the world. Lorem333Ipsum (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Also there are 3 pro databases for runners, not one like imdb.com for actors. Which one should we choose? Lorem333Ipsum (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me that this template is similar to authority control (pulls data from Wikidata and generates external links to databases), except it takes up a bit more space and is not collapsible. Perhaps it'd be worth thinking about either merging this template into authority control (having authority control generate these links), or making this into a navbox similar to authority control. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Novem Linguae: The navbox idea is an interesting one, but should be conducted in a separate discussion. As for the long lists, the issue can be solved by simply using {{Sports links|short=1}} instead of {{Sports links}}. CLalgo (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've created a table of all the external links this template currently pulls from Wikidata at Template talk:Sports links#Links to include, so they can easily be individually scrutinized and discussed. I note that in the ANI thread @Canterbury Tail wrote it pulls all its sites from Wikidata which can be problematic in itself. The main problem with it is that people tend to put every site on Wikidata that has profile information about the athlete and usually it's just duplicated info. So you need to go to Wikidata and remove the extra links that add nothing else unique and @RandomCanadian wrote [Emma Hinze has] only one link because I had to go to Wikidata and remove the others - and yes, I kept the one link which seemed pertinent and non redundant) - both statements which fundamentally misunderstand the template, which only pulls links from Wikidata that are *specifically whitelisted* at Module:External links/conf/Sports. Please don't indiscriminately remove properties from Wikidata items. Letcord (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or severely reduce. Relying on Wikidata is bad for a number of reasons I'll not repeat here, as people are probably tired of them already. Random examples of issues. Stéphane Peterhansel, a great name in rally racing (14 wins at the Dakar, so not some obscure sporter): this template gives one link, to driverdb.com, which lists ... nothing at all. A useless external link, and thus a useless template here. No idea why Lim Jung-woo or August Neo (or any article) should link to a Wayback archive version of databaseOlympics.com, adds nothing of value. Fram (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Jayron32 who has hit the nail right on the head as far as this nominator is concerned. He is now bleating about what are and are not valid arguments. Well, behaving like a spoiled brat because you get shown up at ANI for blatant WP:HARRASS isn't a valid reason for raising a proposal. Neither is trying to make a WP:POINT. As for the template, there is nothing especially wrong with it. It could perhaps be improved but it looks useful enough so why remove it? Jayron, well said. NGS Shakin' All Over 08:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankfully for Wikipedia, blatant personal attacks ("spoiled brat") and bad faith accusations are not valid arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notwithstanding the issues between Random Canadian and Lugnuts about this, the fact is that the principle (it's too many external links displaying the same information) is valid. This is not fixable on Wikidata, because Wikidata is a separate project, and so people on there can just re-add all of the external links. We should be controlling the external links from en.wiki, not from Wikidata- that way, we can enforce WP:EL, which is an English-Wikipedia guideline (and not a Wikidata one). The reason it's on so many pages is because people decided (wrongly in my opinion) to replace one external link on en.wiki with this template that displays many similar, and sometimes duplicate, links (World Sailing for example seems to frequently show everything twice for some Wikidata-related reason). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a widely used and useful template. I find it particularly useful being British due to our fragmented competition structure - the Olympics is GB, the Commonwealth Games are Home Nations (England/Scotland/Wales/NI). That's potentially a bunch of templates to manage depending on whether an athlete is competing for GB, their Home Nation or both. This template just gets whichever relevant links are in wikidata and I have not found any pressing issue with duplication to date. I can see why duplication and Link Farming this might be an issue for certain larger sports (e.g. Rugby, Soccer, Cycling). However, any perceived problems with the sites in the template's whitelist should be discussed in Talk. It may also be worth a discussion about having similar or highly-reliable sources (Global Governing Bodies - FIFA/ISSF/etc) being merged into Authority Control, which could make this template redundant, at which point I might support it's deletion. However, wholesale deletion of a template prior to those discussions seems over the top. I also find it deeply concerning that OP has taken to harming other projects (wikiData - thanks @Letcord for noting that) by removing valid statements on a wikidata entity because of a dispute they have relating to a downstream (wikipedia) article. Hemmers (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a useful template and generates one, two or three links in most random articles that I checked. If there are sports with many potential links to external profiles then the template could be improved to link to only some of those profiles rather than inserting all links. Simeon (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Jayron32. But maybe the discussion at the talk page can somehow "fix" the problems some editors see (not sure if this is going to work, have no clue). Kante4 (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Besides from being extremely useful in providing links to (among others) databases sourcing the articles, it infect does NOT go against WP:EL. The only kind of link WP:EL calls to be limited is official links, which this template doesn't provide. See WP:ELMIN: "Normally, only one official link is included." Where "official link" is defined at WP:ELOFFICIAL as:
An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:
  1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
  2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
As most of the links provided by the template are for independent DB's, the whole argument is moot. CLalgo (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CLalgo: I think you have misread WP:ELNO. It states Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to, meaning that it applies to all links with the exception of one official link. BilledMammal (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BilledMammal: I'm afraid that you have misread that list. The list details the specific cases where an EL shouldn't be provided. Could you, please, provide us with the specific items of that list the support your cause? CLalgo (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • But, at least some of the DB's provided but this template do provide additional information the might otherwise not be provided by the inline citation. Be it general information rather the one relevant for a specific match only, additional information about the competition or athlete and so on.
          It is actually sited as a specific item in WP:ELYES, "What can normally be linked", item 3, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." CLalgo (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The two agree. The issue is that these links are often not suitable; they often only contain information that an sports FA should contain. For example, look at Nils von Kantzow. It contains four links from this template; none of them should be there. This is why this template should not exist; no link contained within it are always suitable for use in an FA article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why shouldn't these links be there? CLalgo (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because they do not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. For example, the Olympics link tells us that he won gold in the 1908 Team All-Around Artistic Gymnastics, that he was Swedish, and that he was born in 1885. Not only should that information be in the article if it was an FA, it is in the current stub article. BilledMammal (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Even at a quick glance, I see that the Olympics.com EL states that von Kantzow's first Olympic Games appearance was in 1908 – which isn't stated in the article, and is a professional athlete statistics – contradicting your argument. CLalgo (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The current article says he competed in the 1908 Olympics, and as it doesn't list any others, implies that it was both his first and last appearance. Even if you see it differently, I think you can agree that is information that should be in a featured article. Further, these are professional athlete statistics that can (and have) been integrated into the article, so WP:ELYES #3, which is limited to information that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article does not apply. BilledMammal (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There is a difference between competing in an OG and not competing in any OG before. This information doesn't appear in the article. More over, the article states that in 1908 von Kantzow won an Olympic gold medal, while Olympics.com states the it was his only Olympic medal. That is why Wikipedia itself is not a DB, that it why it cites every statement and that is why links to databases must be provided when available. I honestly can't understand this crusade against sourcing information and making additional information more accessible. CLalgo (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Should a featured class article make it clear to the reader that he only won one medal, and that his first Olympics was 1908? Clearly, yes, which means that this link violates WP:ELNO #1, and cannot be kept. BilledMammal (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Even if I'd cede the point that von Kantzow's EL section shouldn't link to Olympics.com, it doesn't imply that all links to that site should be removed and definitely not that the whole template should. A solution in this case should be an added feature to the template disabling a specific WikiData property, based on the one currently enabling editors to use a different value for a property than the one stored on WD. It'll be backwards compatible and won't remove sources from articles, unless verified as redundant. Either way, this specific grievance doesn't warrant the deletion of the template or even its linkage to Olympics.com athlete ID (P5815). CLalgo (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Pretend von Kantzow's Olympics.com link isn't currently on Wikidata. How do you propose that we prevent it being automatically added to his Wikipedia page when the link is added to Wikidata, if the template is used?
                            You can't, which is the issue with the template. It copies information over from another project without regard for whether that information is suitable for use in Wikipedia, so either we need to get rid of all fields that are not always compliant with WP:EL (and I don't believe that any of the links are always compliant) or we get rid of the template. BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                            • This logic is backwards. The current state is that some tens of thousands of articles are provided links to reliable sources by this template. You propose that we remove these relevant, comprehensive, reliable sources because some articles might be sourced "too much"? It's absurd. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even if your point is accepted and some of the links in some of the articles will be determined as redundant, the removal of all links from all articles is extreme. Even WP:EL's own header states that "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Even if all your argument would be accepted as righteous, the motion would still be in the wrong. The removal of duplicated sources shouldn't, mustn't, come at the price of the removal of relevant, comprehensive, reliable, unique ones. CLalgo (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                              • And no one in proposing removing all external links from all sports articles. We are proposing that sports articles include individual links that have been reviewed for appropriateness - this is something that both doesn't happen with this template and can't happen, as links can be added after the editor adds the template to the article.
                                Given that editors should not be adding content without confirming that it is appropriate, I don't understand your objection to this. BilledMammal (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                                • The current state is that tens of thousands of articles now include links provided by this template. Removing the template will remove the links. That is a no-go. As to the other point, the fact that links to DB entries are automatically added to subjects articles using the template is a positive, not a negative. More sources means more reliable and verifiable articles. No "wrong" links are added. Even if the template's objectors claims are accepted in full, the worst it does is to add some maybe-redundant, reliable sources to articles. If you want to continue this sub-thread, please explain what you think should be done with all the articles currently using the template, who will create the new templates for DBs facilitated by this template who do not have ones, and other questions of this kind that have been previously asked. Otherwise, please stop repeating the same "but feature article" and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. CLalgo (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • The majority of links provided by this template have no business being in the External Links section of articles. Many of the websites being linked are not reliable sources (many are self-published databases compiled from unchecked amateur research), and in many cases the reliable sources contain zero information. The replacement for this template would be editors selectively adding appropriate links, rather than adding a template that indiscriminately spams articles with worthless links. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • "The majority of links provided by this template have no business being in the External Links section of articles" — This is just an unserious exaggeration.
                                      "Many of the websites being linked are not reliable sources" — if so, please provide us with detailed examples in the template's talk page — for them to be removed from the whitelist.
                                      "in many cases the reliable sources contain zero information." — "many"? Even if so, the suggested manual override could solve these rare occurances.
                                      "The replacement for this template would be editors selectively adding appropriate links, rather than adding a template that indiscriminately spams articles with worthless links." — This answers the question "What should be done in articles to be created in the future", but what about the articles currently providing links using the template? CLalgo (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • No, serious and demonstrably true. If the template is kept (note: I !voted to fix it, but some of the comments from those adamant about keeping it makes me wonder if that is actually possible) it needs completely stripping of all existing links and each website only (re)added after discussion confirms that it's inclusion would meet guidelines. Lack of information is not rare; it's quite common, especially for sportspeople from the pre-Internet era and/or non-English language countries. What happens to articles currently using the template? Well, they lose a bunch of worthless links (note, we aren't talking article content here). wjematherplease leave a message... 13:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • To add to what Wjemather has said, specific templates do not need to be created for this, as the generic template Wikidata URL is suitable. BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • This militant approach is astonishing. The template and the whitelist exist and are updated for 5 years now, and you claim they should be completely striped to begin the process all over again, instead of just citing specific items that should be removed from the existing list. The audacity in the statement "Well, they lose a bunch of worthless links", as if all links to all entries in every database are worthless in articles about sportspeople, even when the policy cited by the template's objectors has a clear statemnt in their favor makes me question if there is any value in this discussion, or whether it isn't a discussion at all but a crusade. As for the suggestion to use {{Wikidata URL}}, it clearly shows the lack of understanding of what link templates are meant for, creating a uniform look to say the least. CLalgo (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                                            • I have not managed to find a discussion that established scope and inclusion criteria – perhaps you could point to one? If not, then presumably as a result of this apparent lack of planning, the template is so indiscriminate and bloated that TNT is required to fix it; stripping it down to official primary sources would be a good starting point. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think we should be deleting a template simply because it is possible for it to be misused. I can't properly use most wikidata-linked templates but that is because of my personal ignorance. By analogy newcomers often can't use the citation templates but that is not a reason for deleting those templates. WP:External links is a guideline that can only be implemented subjectively and I do not approve of attempts to enforce globally some particular interpretation. Thincat (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If encouraging people to treat external links on a case-by-case basis (as is done at nearly every other non-sports article) is an "attempt to enforce globally some particular interpretation" (despite the fact it might lead to quite different results depending on the article), then this template, which in effect says "oh, these sites are always good", is an even worse example of just that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - External links should be added on an case-by-case basis, not by using a template that's edited centrally to affect thousands of articles with no review at the individual article level. If a link to a database is needed, it's unclear why one would use this template instead of simply adding the link.
I would also caution editors to avoid ad hominem attacks, and I encourage the closer to consider the substance of the arguments being made here. The level of incivility we're seeing from experienced editors and admins on sports topics is starting to get out of hand. –dlthewave ☎ 12:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closer doesn't need your guidance. What is out of hand is the effort by a few editors to invalidate comments that they don't like. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My decision to !vote on your proposal does not obligate me to argue with you. Your inability to accept legitimate criticism of your behavior is your problem, not mine. Stop wasting my time. –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My exasperated reply to the OP was borne out of unique circumstances and parroting my words back at me demonstrates both a lack of maturity and a failure to reasonably interpret the situation. I'm not concerned with whether or not you agree with me, but it would be nice if you would have the decency to stop pretending that my opinion should not count. If you were sincere when you expressed concerns about incivility, you would not behave like this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"unique circumstances" do not excuse either incivility or accusations of insincerity. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When somebody goes from complaining about incivility in one comment to openly trolling in the next, the insincerity is obvious. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Jayron32 . --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jayron has not provided any rationale beyond personal attacks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose/keep: I agree that it's far better if external links are directly inserted in the article but in the case of a stub, this template is useful to have external links already specified in Wikidata. To prevent a long list of external links in some case, another option is to change the way those links are showed, for instance as in French wikipedia (example).LeFnake (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, messy and overly wordy. McPhail (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose This template is the best way to utilize wikidata for athletes. I have done literally thousands of edits to wikidata to populate this infobox and implement on hundred of pages. It has also standardized the layout of external links. I would prefer the this discussion to move onto the template itself and to help refine it and limit it scope. The way third party website have taken over it management is an issue I would prefer it to be used for primary sources. I really don't get the distrust of wikidata and it standard by some user to link to external sources? Links to other verifiable databases do not in my opinion need extensive referencing. I have more issue with the fact wiki English cannot agree to even write its url in English!!! User:Yachty4000 21:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment assumes that 1) we want to use Wikidata for external links in the first place and 2) that this template is really the "best way" to do so. Neither of these is a given: as shown, linking appropriate sites manually (something which is done for most other articles) is a perfectly acceptable solution; and being "lazy" about it by using one generic one-size-fits-all template (which on top of that is full of inappropriate links) is not "the best way" to do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't really see the point of this template. Since Wikidata is more liberal on the topic of external links than Wikipedia, they're not up to standard, with some dubious ones slipping through the cracks as others have pointed out. While the work of manually discerning external links to use is going to likely be a pain, it'll be a lot better than dumping a bunch and hoping no inappropriate external links are in there. As for how we would phase this out, I'd say have a bot go through and change all instances of this template to be subst:'d before we go through with a deletion. Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 02:24, 14 April 2022 (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/2022_April_7&oldid=1082758343"