Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

August 4[edit]

Template:Batman films[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Batman films (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

unused and redundant to template:Batman in popular media. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cathead escort ships of the[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cathead escort ships of the (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete I can see no use for this except to save a very, very, very small effort in creating the introductory sentences of an apparently hypothetical series of articles. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cathead victorian era military equipment of[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cathead victorian era military equipment of (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete I can see no use for this except to save a very, very, very small effort in creating the introductory sentences of an apparently hypothetical series of articles. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

unused and replaced by template:Municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina and categories. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete POV violation by categorizing settlements by arbitrary benchmarksCurb Chain (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Austria Imagemap[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Austria Imagemap (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

unused, and from the links it appears it has been unused for quite sometime. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BallaratLocalities[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:BallaratLocalities (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

unused and replaced by other templates. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bienvenidos[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Bienvenidos (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

unused (although it would be substituted), I can find no uses of it in user talk space. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Athlete icon[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Athlete icon (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Athlete icon2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

unused and apparently replaced by {{sport icon}}. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Third-party[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Third-party (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Template fork of {{primary sources}}, which was unfortunately modified to be meaningless. Nobody (except spammers) want articles based on secondary sources that are written by people affiliated with the topic, like a publisher's plug of their author's book and so forth. The primary sources template used to sensibly ask for third-party/indepenent sources until it was unwisely modified to make it pointless. It should be revered to this version, and this fork/reincarnation of it removed. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Both the changes to {{primary sources}} and this one address 2 distict (but often lumped togather) issues. Primary was changed to deal with primary sources, something that WP:V requires more than. This template asks for more sources that are both reliable and independant of the article's content. A secondary source meets WP:V, but does not meet WP:N. Primary sources was trying to equate all secondary sources as essentially primary until the text change mentioned by FuFoFuEd. That's why it was changed and this template created. They both deal with relevant, but distinct issues. In addition, the wording on Primary now is phrased as though primary and affiliated sources are also somehow not reliable.Jinnai 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Despite several editors not knowing the difference, WP:Secondary does not mean independent. The delete rationale is exactly backwards, so let me say that I fully agree with the nom that a secondary source written by a closely affiliated source is not good enough, and that's exactly why we need this template: to tag articles that have problems because the sources are not independent of the subject, irrespective of whether said non-independent sources in question are primary, secondary, or tertiary. That's the purpose of this template: to tell people that even secondary sources aren't good enough if those secondary sources are affiliated with the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The original (until end of March 2011 that is) {{primary sources}} states in bold "This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications." What is wrong with that? It is clear that the thousands of articles it was added to required that particular fix. Now that template, still included in the same articles, says something pointless: "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources". Do you really want spammers to fix their articles by just adding more of the same non-independent but otherwise reliable sources?! And now we have this third party template fork of the original meaning of the primary sources template included almost nowhere! Utter nonsense by busy wiki-bodies. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong with it is that when you need to indicate that an article needs third-party sources and it does not rely on primary sources, then {{Primary sources}} is a silly template to be using. A first-party secondary source is not a primary source, but it's still not what we want to build our articles on. Putting that a primary-source template on a non-primary-source problem is unhelpful.
I want people to label the problem(s) that exist, and to solve the problem(s) that exist. I want to end up with articles built on sources that are both secondary sources and independent sources, not just one or the other, and I don't want to tell someone that they have a "primary source" problem when they actually have an "affiliated with the subject" problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It should be mentioned here that {{reliable sources}} has long been another name for {{primary sources}}. So it has long been a template with a scope that is much wider than its primary name (no pun intended). You do seem to be fixating only on the primary name, as opposed to its actual long-time content and use, and that's not really helpful. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Separate problems should have separate templates. If an article exposes a combination of different problems than editors can several templates as they see fit.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Though I essentially stand behind my reasoning above, I change my vote to neutral after looking at the version history, involved editors and the fact that the split/changes don't seem to have been discussed back in January 2011, when they should have been. This starts to look like pointless template quarrelling to me, where I don't want to participate on either side"--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment. It is true that {{third-party}} had been forked out of {{primary sources}} (by WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)). But that change wasn't really that bad - it focused the template name better to the content. Having a slightly redundant template is fine by me - once upon a time, we did not have e.g. {{inline citations}} and had to resort to {{unreferenced}}, but those are two different issues. But then, this user and other started insisting we purge {{primary sources}} of anything other than reliance on primary sources, which is premature, as I explained it to them on talk - when the template transclusion count is so high, we can't just gut the template and ignore the obvious overlap (as both you and myself have pointed out, most of these taggings are basically one and the same). If we are going to revert to the more generic version of the template, then we need to rename it into {{third-party sources}} and leave {{primary sources}} as an incoming redirect. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Amusingly enough, as I looked into the history of the example I mentioned, I found Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_7#Template:Nofootnote. Nicely compartmentalizing cleanup issues is generally a good idea, but it has to be executed in an efficient manner. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Joy wrote "that change wasn't really that bad". I strongly disagree, see above for rationale; in a nutshell, that template was already added to thousands of articles for a specific problem stated by its old and way more meaningful wording. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Or rather, one of the several specific problems stated by its previous wording. I have to correct myself - if we're going to go back to that, then both {{third-party sources}} and {{primary sources}} need to point to {{reliable sources}} in order to elucidate the scheme. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Will anyone protest if I now create {{affiliated sources}}, which should help clarify each tagger's specific intent? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. The distinction between primary source and third party source is significant and ought to reflected in different templates. To deal with the legacy issue: there are three possible outcomes: (a) nothing happens, (b) the actual problem is remedied in the article, and the template is deleted from the article, or (c) a incorrect primary sources is replaced with a third party sources template where appropriate. patsw (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    • "The distinction between primary source and third party source is significant and ought to reflected in different templates." Srsly? Let me explain this to you: A (having only primary [or secondary] sources affiliated with topic) is bad, (B having third-party sources) is good. We had [1] a template "primary sources" that said, please don't do A, do B. Are you telling us we need two templates for this? What are they going to say? The "legacy issue" was recently created by unilaterally editing "primary sources", through full protection, to change it to some meaningless wording, while the meaningful wording was basically copied to this fork. This is not a "legacy issue", it's plain bureaucratic brain failure. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Primary Secondary
Non-independent First-party primary source:
N not sufficient
Tag with both {{Primary sources}}
and {{Third-party sources}}
First-party secondary source:
N not sufficient
Tag with only {{Third-party sources}}
Independent Third-party primary source:
N not sufficient
Tag with only {{Primary sources}}
Third-party secondary source:
YesY sufficient
(Do not tag)
No, Patsw is correct when he identifies it as a legacy issue. A couple of years ago, we had a significant problem with a handful of editors who used the words "secondary" and "independent" interchangeably, which resulted in a lot of confusion. This was based on their ignorance (since corrected) of what the terms meant. The "traditional" wording of this template is one result of their ignorance. While the sourcing policies themselves have been fixed, we are still in the process of educating the average editor about the difference.
FuFoFuEd, I don't feel like you're grasping the basic facts. WP:Secondary does not mean independent. Wikipedia cites thousands of third-party primary sources, and these are not sufficient for an article, even though they are not affiliated with the subject. Perhaps the table here will be helpful for you. Your solution would leave us with one template that is useful in only one of the three tag-worthy situations. We need two separate templates because we have two separate problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Please give me an example of an article based entirely on third-party primary sources, and explain why this article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I'm willing to bet a different tag is much more suitable for those articles, but I don't know for sure until I see exactly what you have mind when you use that phrase. Btw, I totally agree that secondary [source] does not mean independent/third-party [source]. Adding a secondary but non-independent source is never a fix in my opinion for either WP:N or NPOV purposes, so I see not point whatsoever in having a template asking for that; see my opening statement here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Such examples ought to be hard to find because the Wikipedia requires a topic to have more than a reference in a third-party primary source to have a stand-alone article. That's a threshold test for notability. Also, since you are arguing against the continuity of a guideline, the burden for the case you make: to enumerate good articles for which there are third-party primary sources alone, is on you. patsw (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC).
You are wikilawyering, and not even doing a good job. WP:N doesn't ask for secondary third-party sources, only for "Independent of the subject" and reliable. Are they automatically secondary now? You said there was a difference, but can't give any examples?? FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. "Third-party" means "independent of the subject". Is anyone claiming otherwise?
  2. The claim that "...an article based entirely on third-party primary sources..." exists, is the argument you are making, not me. If no such articles exist, then the discussion of them is moot.
  3. WP:N asks for secondary sources: "Sources",for notability purposes, should be secondary sources patsw (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Many medicine-related articles rely too much on third-party primary sources. Medicinal mushrooms has had a serious problem with over-reliance on third-party primary sources. We've made some progress on that particular article, but see, for example, this diff, in which the editor misunderstands the {{Primary sources}} tag—because, as his edit summary correctly notes, the article contains more than 200 third-party sources. Sadly, the text of that template did not help him understand that the whole problem is that the article contains more than 200 third-party primary sources, and only a couple of (rather weak) secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: it's good to have separate templates for separate issues. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep somewhat related issue, with a lot of overlap. But different focus. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.