Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 5

< February 4	February 6 >

February 5 edit

Template:Unreferenced stub 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 Merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unreferenced stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Unreferenced stub with Template:Unreferenced.
Redundant template. It makes no obvious sense to have a separate template for unreferenced stubs: whether the unreferenced article is a stub or not has no importance in dealing with the sourcing. The stub also lists the articles in the exact same categories as the unreferenced template, but has a different layout, and is hidden when added by a bot, making this important warning template invisible for our readers (hidden cats plus hidden template), so they don't get the warning that the article is unsourced nor the urge to become an editor. Template as it stands has no advantages over the existing one, and some disadvantages, so should be merged. Fram (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have long wondered about this as well. Unless serious arguments against would be raised by other editors, I'd support this nomination. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has only existed since November, not that long... Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Since the day of its creation. :) Debresser (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reader does not need a much warning to know that a one-sentence article is incomplete; but they already have the stub template to encourage them to become an editor. "This article is incomplete; please help Wikipedia by expanding it."
The reason this template was created was to mitigate the problem where the "unreferenced" tag takes up more space than the text of the article itself. It's true that material in stubs needs to be verifiable, but the stub tag itself is sufficient warning to the reader that the article is incomplete. I would rather simply see this template deleted, rather than merged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't an unref stub the same as the deleted-away {{substub}} ? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, a sub stub was a dubious concept that gained currency because articles that were merely very short compared with what they should be retained the title "stub". The idea of stubs really comes from programming where "stub procedures" do nothing but the bare essentials - not even being required to function, merely not to break stuff. Thus "Charles Darwin was a man" would be a stub, or indeed an empty page - since it was always possible to add a basic fact or two (else why would you be creating the page) real life stubs tended to run to a couple of short sentences at least, especailly as people don't really like making effectively empty stubs. Thus articles of less than about a dozen(?) words were said "to not even be stubs" - hence sub-stubs.Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete or merge. I am of the opinion that, since a stub is by definition an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject (...), stubs should rarely contain any questionable information in need of citation, and having {{Unreferenced}} or other cleanup templates on stub pages would most likely be redundant. This template represents just that redundancy. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many, many stubs with one or two refs, just like there are many without any references. Not distinguishing between them doesn't seem productive to me, so I don't believe delete is a good option here. Furthermore, for the average reader, a "stub" template is a mostly meaningless, easily ignored thingy at the bottom of pages. An "unreferenced" notice is a large warning sign. Casual readers don't know that short equals unverified, unsourced, and/or dubious. Fram (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(And, of course, short does not necessarily mean any of those things. Rich Farmbrough, 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC).)[reply]

Delete - not a particularly useful intersection. Stubs are stubs regardless of whether or not they're sourced, and an unsourced article is a problem regardless of whether or not it's a stub. Arguably, an unsourced stub is less of a problem than a fuller article, but it's also arguably more of a problem. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if a category for unreferenced stubs is wanted it could be added as a parameter to {{stub}} -- PBS (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no it couldn't. It could be added as a parameter to all umpteen thousand stub templates and to {{Asbox}} - and if the well meaning and generally wise folk who developed Asbox from where I left it had not removed that part of the original design that passed through few default parameters it could be done easily by just changing Asbox. But {{Stub}} is effectively ephemeral, and probably not what you meant. Rich Farmbrough, 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I created this in the awareness that it would be a candidate for merging, but in order to deal with the Erik9Bot unref category. The question of whether smaller tags are wanted on stub pages is one part of the decision. If so implementing that through either a parameter or two templates is much of a muchness, having more or less the same (or at least balanced) problems and benefits. If not a simple merge will do the job. Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I noticed the size-argument above as well, but I don't think that is an argument at all. Debresser (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of our key problems in dealing with unreferenced articles is sorting out which of them need to be dealt with more urgently. This template is a good idea, because these are in general considerably less urgent than the longer unreferenced articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why would stubs be less urgent? I can imagine a possible argument, but one might argue the opposite just as well. 2. Sorting for urgency is not a valid argument to create a second template. Just imagine we should make duplicates of all maintenance templates for that purpose. Debresser (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that a libellous statement in a stub biography is still libellous even with a "this article is a stub" notice at the bottom. Ultimately, all unreferenced articles are a problem. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are less urgent because they are easier to either source or re-create. Maurreen (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The most important aspect I see to the {{Unreferenced stub}} template is that it contains a parameter to suppress the display of the box in the article. Since stubs already have messages to encourage editing, and a large box could overwhelm the content of a short article, this seems a good feature to have for use with stubs. Special categories for unreferenced stubs don't seem so useful to me. If the 'auto' parameter were merged into {{Unreferenced}}, then {{Unreferenced stub}} could be redirected without disrupting the 60K+ pages it is transcluded into. Am happy to help with the merge process if that's the decision at close. --RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RL0919. This is not necessary, as it is already covered by "stub" and "unreferenced" templates. Airplaneman ^talk 22:40, 27 February 2010 (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:LostSeason1 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 Speedy delete per author request Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LostSeason1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LostSeason2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LostSeason3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LostSeason4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:LostSeason5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All Lost episodes use {{LostEpisodes}} which covers all seasons. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary templates. Anna Lincoln 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Better to have just the one template, stops cluttering, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As creator of the templates- Delete. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2010 (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:Crefwork 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, orphaned template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphan. Anna Lincoln 10:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and unneeded. Debresser (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2010 (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:Clips of Mohammad Khatami 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clips of Mohammad Khatami (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template containing a collection of external video links formatted as a sidebar. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphan. Anna Lincoln 10:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not used and has extremely limited potential use. Debresser (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2010 (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:Clinton confirmation vote 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clinton confirmation vote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Not sure if it is of any use? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphan. Anna Lincoln 10:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not used and has extremely limited potential use. Debresser (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2010 (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:Clan Fraser 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clan Fraser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. There is already {{Infobox Clan}} on Clan Fraser. This does not appear to be necessary. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphan. Anna Lincoln 10:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template lists many articles. It could be used on all of them. The fact that it isn't in use at the moment is no reason to delete it when it has obvious relevant potential use. Debresser (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. {{Scottish clans}} appears to link most of the relevant articles. There are several surname articles (all dab pages) and files, where it would not be appropriate to place this type of template. So there seems to be little non-redundant use for this, despite the number of pages it lists. --RL0919 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (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.