Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 24 February 26 >

February 25 edit

Template:Value 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) 14:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only transclusion was on Retractions in academic publishing, confusing this template with {{val}}. It should display as 96032 instead of 1. Not sufficiently complex to warrant a template, as the value of any constant can be specified directly in text. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:19, 25 February 2021 (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:Trimurti Films 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 2021 March 5. Izno (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2021 (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).

Myanmar township templates 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) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. The Banner talk 11:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Most of the bluelinked "settlements" are unrelated topics with coincidentally similar names, and many more have been converted to redlinks over the years. Although created in good faith for understandable reasons, they have become a maintenance headache with little benefit to the reader. See also similar nominations on nearby dates. Certes (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep such settlement templates are a normal feature of counties and large townships. Editors need to remember that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a gazetteer as well. See Wikipedia:Five pillars I take issue with @Certes:, the listed places are not "are unrelated topics with coincidentally similar names", they are all place within the titled township, a very real connection. The false drops that editor Certes refers to (bluelinks that are linked elsewhere than the indicated village) are often the result of editors who create new articles not doing due diligence with respect to existing links. To the best of my knowledge, they were not created by a bot, but mostly, if not all, by User:Dr. Blofeld, now @Encyclopædius:. As WP:PLACEOUTCOMES says Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source. This usually also applies to any other area that has a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities. If some of these have been turned into redlinks, then they must not have had a reliable source presented, because they generally do have a reliable source at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency database. I would hope that editor Certes could explain why these are a maintenance headache and to whom. If you think that these areas are unlikely to eventually generate articles, I suggest that you look at {{Kalewa Township}}. In the unlikely event that policy is ignored and the consensus is to deletes these templates, instead they should be converted to settlement sections within each of the township articles. I rather think that they are more useful the way they are. If you are concerned with any particular township template, I would be happy to disambiguate any false drops within it; just let me know.  --Bejnar (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking the first template as a typical example, the blue links in the body of Template:Seikpyu Township lead to:
    • Ainggyi, a village in Nyaungu Township
    • Gwebin, a village in Mogok Township
    • Kandaw, a village in Banmauk Township
    • Kushe, a municipality in Nepal
    • Sakhan, a village in Banmauk Township
    • Seikphyu, the main topic of the template
    • Tabaung, a calendar month
    • Taungbyu, a village in Mingin Township
    • Tawthalin, another calendar month
    Only one of those links has anything to do with Seikpyu Township. Five more links, now fixed, led to disambiguation pages which had no entry relevant to Seikpyu Township. I've personally made dozens of edits such as this and other editors have done similar work, but many more "false drops" still exist and more appear regularly. That's the maintenance headache. A template which mainly links to irrelevant articles just wastes the reader's time, not to mention that of the editors who check and fix it. Certes (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly they're a mess, most of the townships need a lot of work whicj should be done before starting settlements within each one. We're still 10 years away from ever getting to that level so useless and a mess which needs cleaning up. Stubs like Mutaik should all be redirected to the township until they can be written properly.

† Encyclopædius 19:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per above. total mess, better to start from scratch when someone wants to take the time to make sure the entries are correct and blue linked. until that happens, categories are the best method for keeping track. Frietjes (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2021 (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/2021_February_25&oldid=1010499425"