Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 28 April 30 >

April 29[edit]

Template:California Bears roster[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) 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California Bears roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be a copy of the MLB roster template, being used in the context of a fictional league of teams playing a fictional game. WP:NOT a personal webhost, especially when it has the potential of confusing fact with fiction. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:14, 29 April 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:Better source[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. RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Better source (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I encountered this template at Hutaree. It breaks up the text with claims that a "non-primary source is needed". Wikipedia policy advises caution with the use of primary sources, but certainly does not prohibit them. The template at the moment is still restricted to use in mostly religious contexts where a group's own statements are used as source - in this context the appropriate action is to name the primary source in the text, making it clear who is making the statement, and then to describe it accurately. Switching to a secondary source would be especially inappropriate with notorious groups like the Hutaree, because it means writing a BLP article about a group of people based almost entirely on sources that regard them as terrorists, without giving them "their fair say". Although possibly an unobtrusive template to solicit better sources might be possible if placed inside the ref tags, it cannot be created by modifying this one. Wnt (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would changing the text to [primary?] with a link to WP:PRIMARY help prevent articles from being broken up too much? The template makes no claim that primary sources are forbidden by policy. Like any other inline cleanup template such as {{who}}, {{which}}, etc., This template clearly identifies areas of concern. Use of this template is far more actionable that simply tagging the page with {{primarysources}}, this template showing up on a number of religious articles speaks to the it not being as well known as other inline cleanup templates, rather than any restrictions, it may be used anywhere. --RadioFan (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Not sure where the view that this template is restricted to religious articles is coming from. Click on uses above to review the over 100 places it is used, a wide variety of articles as well as a tool for discussion in talk pages.--RadioFan (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After thinking a bit about the shortened version proposed by RadioFan, especially considering the article-level tag, there perhaps should be an inline tag for when the problem isn't the whole article. No need to use big signage for a single sentence, when the concept identified already is used. Delete I am unable to see the reason it is needed, as we have {{verify credibility}} which seems to encompass the intended usage of this template, besides the alternative Wnt speaks of. W n C? 19:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC) W n C? 14:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was exactly the inline template I was looking for, appropriately more specific than {{verify credibility}}. __meco (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per meco. Codf1977 (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a perfectly cromulent use of the inline tagging system. RadioFan's suggested wording sounds like a good idea. Indeed, the deletion rationale is dubious itself; if the only coverage that a group has received from reliable secondary sources is negative then we are certainly not obliged under BLP to give the subject a "fair say" by "balancing" the secondary sources with the subject's own words! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serves a needed purpose. Objection that it is used inappropriately can be easily resolved by removing it from the text where a primary source is acceptable. Shortened version also ok. --Trödel 14:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needed, succinct. Can we get a snowball, please? The notice of this TFD is spewing all over content pages.LeadSongDog come howl 16:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notice is supposed to appear where the template is used (less than 100 articles in this case), and not liking the notice is not a valid reason for a WP:SNOW closure of any XFD. However, I have updated the notice style to "tiny" to reduce the impact. --RL0919 (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that recently reviewed articles, e.g. Sleep apnea, can have many instances of the inline template. One TfD notice might be reasonable, but covering the article in the notices while obscuring the intended displayed meaning of the template is not. Thank you for the tiny, it helps a bit. LeadSongDog come howl 18:39, 5 May 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:Irish By Election Start3[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 per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish By Election Start3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:42, 29 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_29&oldid=1141876638"