Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 9

< April 8	April 10 >

April 9 edit

Template:Refimprove 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 SNOW keep. The nominator's reasoning has been roundly rejected by the community; consensus is that this template is useful and appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. It is an overused, pervasive template that is is redundant to all other referencing templates. It is generally place at the top of an article and no indication is given as to where that references might be needed. {{Unreferenced}} does one end of the spectrum of referencing and {{citation needed}} does all the rest. {{Refimprove section}} is of more use since it narrows the concerns down to a particular section of an article.

I agree with the comments at Template_talk:Refimprove#A (mostly) user's perspective.

Referencing on WP is important but I don't think this template helps. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→ This is a second nomination. For information about the first nomination, see this discussion from September 2007.

Keep. This is a useful template, used where sourcing on the entire article is below standard, but at least one reference already exists, precluding the use of the unreferenced tag. For instance, see Kana, which has only two citations: One in the infobox and one in the final paragraph. This is the kind of article that refimprove on the top is intended for, since it is an article that is basically unreferenced except for two minor cites (where it should be just blossoming with numbers). SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be noted that the template that the nominator has proposed replacing this template with is actually a variant of the nominated template. According to its own documentation, {{Ref improve section}} is deprecated, and that {{Refimprove|section}} should be used instead. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am sure there are many instances that are the same as the Kana article but the info that is of concern should be marked with {{citation needed}} rather than simply making a vague statement by using {{Refimprove}}. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep I'm not sure how other editors do it, but if I tag something with {{refimprove|section}}, it is after already tagging a section with {{citation needed}}. It's a good attention getter if a section is filled with statements that need references, that may get missed/ignored without it otherwise being there. It's a very useful and since the nominator's nomination mentions that {{ref improve section}} is deprecated by this template, I'm not sure why that one isn't being nominated instead. The only difference I see is that it allows for the use on a whole article, rather than having to tag each section which can be a bit much depending on the work that needs to be done. ScottSteiner ✍ 05:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with SchuminWeb, this template has its own situation where it should be used, and that situation makes it worthwhile to keep. It would be ridiculous to have every section in an article like Kana tagged with the section version of this template versus just this one at the top of the article. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not advocate using {{Refimprove section}} for all sections of an article. I want editors to be more exact with their concerns about refs. I wonder how many of the {{Refimprove}} temples are a result of "drive by" editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest as the better template to add in this case? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Liefting has, in a comment above, advocated for use of {{fact}} to be placed on individual problem statements. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—There are revisions to the template which can be done to address some of the more vexing criticisms. I think that a careful consideration of what is needed vs. what can be done by way of template revision should be done. I am not happy to need to place my opinion here. I would suggest that this nomination is a bit pointy in that it leaps past the notion of template improvement right to template deletion. The thought to raise a deletion request should have been discussed considering the widespread use of the template; and considering that use, the nominator likely well knows that deletion would not be an endpoint of this nomination . . . thus its pointy (though not pointless) nature. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I did not put the template up for deletion to make a point. I genuinely think that if we delete this template we can improve WP editing - and therefore WP in general. By using {{citation needed}} or one of the many other ref templates addressing referencing will be made easier for other editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'm very willing to look at this as a good faith nomination rather than a pointy one. On another note, SchuminWeb was quite observant to note that Template:Ref improve section is deprecated in favor of parameterized use of Template:Refimprove. Would you suggest that we "de-deprecate" ("re-dedicate"?) Template:Ref improve section in order to support deletion of Template:Refimprove? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "de-deprecate" it. Forgot to mention that eatlier. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't have any problem with the current wording; in fact its very useful as written. If there are instances when the template is misplaces, I would encourage the nominator to go through and remove/replace the template, even if this would be done en masse. Them From Space 23:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the working that I am concerned about - it is it's overuse and vagueness that makes it a poor template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm action request—According to the TFD guidelines, a template needs to be added to the template itself, such as Template:Tfd. I wanted to suggest that this be done rather than unilaterally doing it, as the template is fully protected. Could someone second (and maybe third) this action? Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already put in a request at Template_talk:Refimprove#I_have_put_it_up_for_deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Template is very useful in indicating an article not having adequate referencing. Dough 48 72 05:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, I use it in drive-by tagging, usually when I'm trying to update the specific subpages of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. Sorry, but I'm checking a large number of articles each day to find qualified candidates for the Main Page. I don't have time to read each article that carefully and identify the right locations to add {{cn}} tags. I see a relatively long article with only one or two citations in it, I'm going to slap with with {{refimprove}} and move on to the next one. Similarly, if I see a long article with a lot of sections in it that need footnotes, I'm not going to put in {{refimprove section}} and {{unreferenced section}} everywhere; that's what {{refimprove}} is for. howcheng {chat} 05:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other templates are fine when a few specific statements need citations or when one section of an article needs further citations, but this template is perfectly suited to articles where the whole thing needs better sourcing. It would make no sense to stick loads of tags in these articles when one will do.--Michig (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is very useful for articles that have an insufficient number of references or poor-quality references. These are instances where the template's use does not overlap with {{unreferenced}}, {{citation needed}}, or {{refimprove section}}. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 05:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and handy. - Artoasis (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It would be better to delete the {{unreferenced}} template and replace refimprove with it. Marcus Qwertyus 05:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per what everyone else is saying. --Nat682 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned, there are many instances where articles have at least one reference but are heavily underreferenced; this template is a useful tag to indicate that wider-scale attention is needed. chrylis (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schumin sums up this template's usage perfectly. And I think this is a good WP:SNOW example. oknazevad (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the reason that the nominator sees this as overused is that there are so many articles that need a lot more citations than they have. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be tagged and tagging individual sections of some articles would result in template clutter that would unnecessarily distract the reader because there are many articles that need every section tagged. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cultural blocs 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) 23:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cultural blocs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Original Research. A jumble of different disconnected concepts lumped into one template. Does not serve any thing Mootros (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it appears the grouping is subjective. Frietjes (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cultural macroregions of the world 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) 23:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cultural macroregions of the world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Original research. (Not even done well.) Mootros (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and the fact that it's barely used nor can it be. --Merbabu (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; it's just a big jumbled list misleadingly presented as though it was some formal structured system. bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Disputed diagram 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) 23:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disputed diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has been merged into Template:Disputed chem as discussed on Wikipedia talk:CHEM#Category for disputed chemical structures. Not transcluded anywhere. Leyo 09:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As I mentioned in the WT:CHEM discussion, the naming is too generic for its purpose and it's redundant to have two little-used cats for the same purpose. DMacks (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DMacks. Mootros (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a general dispute template for diagrams? If not, this should be repurposed for that. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any in Category:Dispute templates or WP:DT. --Leyo 07:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Jimmy Giuffre 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 no consensus, it appears more articles are being created. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jimmy Giuffre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary for 4 albums from jazz leader. Cosprings (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, it looks like more articles could be written (now up to seven). Frietjes (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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