Knowledge:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 24

1591:- on which we can expect the content to be judged in the same way as other content. Furthermore expecting someone to translate and check the references is no more realistic than expecting someone to copy-edit and check references. It is a fundamental problem of citing references that unless they are traced back they have no more guarantee of supporting the claim, than an unreferenced fact has of being supportable. This I and many others have discovered when following up footnotes in books. Here we are into the area of some kind of reference verification, which is the job sub-editors once did, but is now largely ignored as far as I can see, both in the big wide world and in WP. But again, when I created a new version of an article by editing, it I inherit the previous cites, just as if I translated it. In both cases we can see the citer, and we have the same recourse, pretty much, to dealing with problems. 2864:. They were created in January 08 in response to the desire to categorize and more clearly mark characters/episodes/etc that were merged per consensus from individual articles to lists after a lot of discussion between the Anime/Manga and Television projects where the bulk of these were being handled. I can see the argument for renaming those three to match other R templates, though the existing names were done at the time to differentiate them from one another. I'd guess they could be renamed to something like R character to list entry or something similar. However, it seems like ThaddeusB feels this template serves a different purposes and should be kept in conjunction with the CharR now that he knows about it as it is for general character redirects rather than redirects to lists. -- 1158:. The articles were created originally ahead of the templates, about three years ago, but they were bare stubs and no one was prepared to do the necessary to expand them. It was decided that the two history articles should be expanded to incorporate seasonal summaries, the stubs all being redirected, and I suppose no one even bothered to look at the templates. The same thing happened across most of the other Test playing countries except England where the seasonal articles had been developed. However, some work has been done since then to expand seasonal reviews of the other countries. My last word is that it is always best to refer any problems with cricket articles to 1042:. Rome was not built in a day. The templates are quite harmless, especially compared with some of the utter rubbish you see on the site generally and within the cricket project itself, and will be useful when one of us does get around to splitting the main Bangladesh and Sri Lanka articles into individual seasons. Deleting them now to recreate them later is illogical and serves no good purpose whatsoever. This nomination serves to emphasise the complete lack of vision, direction and common sense that has always been evident in these deletion processes (especially the categories one). -- 1139:- I'm disappointed that it took a TfD to inspire the creation of those articles, but at least they got done. Not that this nomination was intended for that purpose, but I believe the ends have justified the means. Btw, Jack, instead of creating pre-emptive navboxes, wouldn't it have been more prudent to create an article in someone's userspace with a list of all the articles that need creating. That way you can keep track of the redlinks as they gradually become bluelinks. – 1084:. Re the Bangladesh template, all eight of its entries now link directly to individual articles which I have very easily set up within the last hour. I will do exactly the same for the Sri Lankan articles next time I'm on the site. I would suggest that some people need to think about actually doing something to help the users rather than sitting in one of these ridiculous deletion sessions and pontificating about supposed navigation links. There is nothing to prevent 2675:: I created this template, not being aware of the other one, however being the creator doesn't affect my argument. We only need one of these certainly, but this one is a much more logical title. Nearly every other redirect classification template is in the form "{{R from XXX}} (or {{R to XXX)". Furthermore, not every character that is redirected goes to a list. As such, I think the best course of action would be to redirect the other template to this one. -- 1369: 3336:. For the first three I mentioned, users will be unable to view playstation.com at all if scripting is disabled. For World of Spectrum, we don't link to search results, so I cannot see the need to facilitate a template used for linking. For Xbox achievements, you need to have an account and sign in to access anything, which clearly goes against 1122:. The concern that prompted the TfD has been addressed, so I'm changing my !vote. With actual articles, this seems to be an ordinary and helpful navigation box. By the way, I think the TfD process worked quite nicely: it prompted an editor with relevant knowledge to address something that had apparently been left on the shelf for years. -- 1103:. The Sri Lanka template now links directly to ten individual articles and I have deliberately redlinked the other nine, which I will set up tomorrow. It seems that this nomination is dead in the water. All that was needed was a bit of effort and furthermore the concerns should have been discussed first at 2922:

I'm really not sure this TfD is the place to discussion renaming the existing templates, versus the whether this template should be deleted. However, as it seems like this discussion will occur here, I've notified the three projects involved in their creation (forgot the video game project in my note

2838:

I also had no idea the CharR template existed and agree that there should only be one, so I'm fine with deleting just as long as all the redirects get consolidated into one category under one template. But I also agree with ThaddeusB that it should conform with the usual R from/R to naming scheme. --

2733:

I do see that it provides some additional functionality (automatic sub-categorization). Given that, the CharR template should either be renamed and made to include the possibility of not pointing to a list, or a separate template should be retained for characters that don't point to a list. I don't

2689:

The other template is more well used, more specific, and more useful in that it auto categories items by series. It also is more specific. Most characters are redirected to a list entry, either a standalone list or a character list in a main article. Otherwise, the more general R from merge should be

1638:

The nominator appears to be arguing that Knowledge articles shouldn't be translated from one language to another (and that eliminating the tags would put a stop to this). As RL0919 noted, this is a longstanding, consensus-backed practice, and seeking to delete these templates (which are merely tools

1430:

If the other wikipedia article pointed to by the template actually has good sources, a mere translation will not ensure that the sources are properly represented - one has to read and evaluate them anew to ensure compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV, and if one has done so, a translation of the interwiki

1058:

What serves no good purpose is for users to click on a supposed navigation link that just takes them back to the top of the article they are already reading. To have an entire box of such links is ridiculous. "Rome was not built in a day" is a bit of a thin argument considering that this template has

2806:

Actually I believe the list has most of the actual ones, with the other being redirects to redirect templates, but I could be wrong. In any case, the list should be made complete as otherwise it is very difficult to find out a give R template exists. This, of course, is not a matter for discussion

1418:

The Expand language template family (Template:Expand language, whereas "language" can be either language of another wikipedia) encourages editors to expand the tagged articles by translating a distinct article from another wikipedia. That strikes me as a call to ignore all content-related wikipedia

3356:

on the rest. I fail to see what the issue is for listing a game's official Sony or Microsoft page for it's respective platform. Yes, you can buy it there, but you can also buy it from the site the developer sets up as well. It's not as if PlayStation.com or Xbox.com are 3rd party sites operated by

1470:. This nomination is based on the unfounded assumption that encouraging the use of a source for material means encouraging editors to "unconditionally trust" it. If there is any real concern over this, the easier solution would be to add a reminder line to the template regarding the importance of 1438:

In a nutshell, the "Expand language" templates only work under the premise that the interwiki articles are written according to the en.wikipedia policies, based on sound sources which are properly evaluated and presented. This hoever can not be taken for granted, and most certainly many interwiki

1554:

said is being said. If specific encouragement is needed, then it would be very easy to add such encouragement to the template, just as I describe above. It's just text. Since the main templates are protected, put an edit request on the talk page of the template for the desired additions.

3267:, and the Xbox achievements site apparently requires registration, which is also discouraged for linking. So I endorse deleting those three for sure. The other two go to gaming sites that I don't know enough about to pass judgment on their appropriateness. I'm neutral on those two. -- 2748:

I see no need to rename the existing template nor to try and merge a more well used template into a lesser used ones. As this one lacks CharR's functionality, what purpose does it actually serve that is not already met by existing templates. Also, that list is far from complete. --

2725:

As to why the older template used to redirected/renamed, it is because the name is inconsistent with virtually other R template and is not anyway intuitive. What is the reasoning for not having it be in the normal R from/R to naming scheme? (Incidentally, it isn't listed at the

2223:

template does not do auto formatting as far as I know, it only adds the microformat hidden CSS stuff, and considering a bot was recently approved to go through and implement this template in hundreds of film articles and episode lists, its function seems to have consensus. --

1536:. It encourages translation, nothing else. If you want people not to translate the other article, but evaluate the other article's sources and add what may be missing per WP:V and WP:NPOV, then have a template that says so - the current template is nowhere close to that. 1442:

Thus, the template family must be deleted. Alternatively, the template family must be radically converted into an unobtrusive template family proposing to check what interwikis there are and what sources they use - which in my view would be useless overtagging.

1431:

is superfluous as one should then be able to write the same in one's own words even better. If the interwiki-sources are however not good, misrepresented or missing, a translation of the interwiki-article eventually does harm to this wikipedia. An example is

1651:

For the record, I strongly disagree with the nominator's basic premise, but my recommendation that this discussion be speedily closed is based entirely upon my belief that it far exceeds TfD's scope and should be relocated to a different forum.

1586:

While WP is not a "Reliable Source" and in general open wikis are not, this is a philosophical point to some extent. Firstly introducing unsourced material is nothing new (and "Reliable Sources" are often wrong anyway)- but the criteria is

1107:. This whole episode shows exactly what is wrong with these bureaucratic deletion processes, especially when you get the inhabitants of these pages wittering about good purpose instead of actually doing something positive for a change. -- 1854:

per nom. I suppose it may have been created to ease navigation, but it is having the opposite effect --- some of these articles have three or four largely-redundant footer nav-templates, which just makes things even more confusing.

2003:

This template is not used and never will be used. Generated by a user to advertise his own band. User has been warned regarding creation of unsuitable pages such as this. Not sure if any speedy criteria apply so using TfD instead.

2337:

what purpose does it really serve? just as simple to enter the dates. Most edittors don't even know the template exists. Just one mroe thing to cause arguements between edittors over 'style' Alan KC 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1512:, which are the master templates affected by this TfD, so the entire concern may be a non-issue. Also, I want to note that the nomination so far isn't following the TfD process appropriately: over 90 templates (per 2721:

should be used when ever a merge is performed, in addition to whatever other R templates apply. Not every redirect is the result of a merge though, and the merge template shouldn't be used if a merger didn't take

2192:

The CSS formatting could have been kept without providing autoformatting or (blue displayed) links, but consensus has it that there was no consensus for such a solution. By using a specific template such as

2272: 955:

This navbox contains one link and eight redirects, all of which link to the same article. It is pointless to have navbox that only links to one article, so I propose that this navbox template be deleted.

2690:

used. I see no valid reason to rename the other, which was created after extensive discussion, per consensus, and following several similar other templates for episodes and other fictional elements. --

518:. The information is centrally located in the team season page, as is appropriate, and the templates do not have any need for transclusion onto any other pages, thus negating the need for a template. 492: 474: 911: 420: 384: 348: 312: 276: 240: 204: 168: 132: 947: 893: 456: 402: 366: 330: 294: 258: 222: 186: 150: 114: 929: 438: 1019:- I should point out that, should articles on individual seasons in Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan cricket ever be created, I would not be opposed to the recreation of these templates. – 1439:

articles flunk that as do many en.wikipedia articles. Even if the interwiki article is a FA, one can not unconditionally trust that WP:V and WP:NPOV are fulfilled, there or here.

2857: 1516:) would be affected, but they are not listed in the nomination, nor have they been tagged regarding the proposed deletion so that interested editors will know about the TfD. -- 1824: 42: 37: 1806: 566:

Per nom and following votes. Even were they still transcluded on their page, guidelines dictate that templates designed only for use on a single page should be avoided. -

3238: 2898:. Is there any reason knowing it points to a list is important? If not I fail to see any problem with this change. The CharR template could be moved over the top of 2247: 2186:

Note: Previously dates were wikilinked which provided standarized (CSS) markup for all dates, including autoformatting to display dates in whatever format one prefers.

1611:

Note that translation of articles across wikis has been encouraged for years. Any general concerns about unrealistic assumptions in the sourcing policies should go to

3193: 1513: 687: 3175: 2637: 3085: 2619: 1576:

I understand there are problems with both the templates (they should perhaps go on the talk page) and the process they imply. The deeper questions posed are:

1410: 678: 3067: 2861: 1392: 660: 1492:. These solutions would be far preferable to deleting the templates. But I see no evidence that any concerns have even been discussed on the talk pages for 2345:

to articles. In other words, it will enable other software to easily extract specific data from the pages for indexing purposes. It has nothing to do with

1506: 1266: 2727: 1248: 2886:

My ideal solution would be to have one template that incorporates the functionality of CharR but doesn't say "to a list". Instead of categorizing to

887: 3439:

discussion I linked, I didn't think individual ones would be so contentious. Would it be better if I withdrew this and nominated them individually?

2163: 1995: 923: 3157: 2145: 1977: 3229: 3139: 2734:

what to use a template that says it points to a list when it doesn't, nor do I want to use a template that says it was merged if it wasn't. --

2908:

and the auto-categorization changed. The same could be done for other fictional elements: "R from fictional element" and "R from episode". --

3211: 2424:— Aside from the issues already discussed, the nominator obviously has a flawed understanding of the history behind "date auto-formatting". 883: 839: 21: 2516: 960: 919: 811: 768: 1088:

from getting involved and doing something to remedy the situation, as I have done. All of which serves good purpose for the users. --

2936: 2877: 2797: 2762: 2703: 2662: 2268: 2237: 3121: 2278:. And with the "df" parameter, one can specify whether to display the date with the Month before day or the day before the month. 3263:, neutral on the others. The Playstaytion.com and Xbox.com templates link to pages that sell the games, which is clearly out per 3103: 741:. It's only transclusion is on the resoundingly rejected policy proposal, where I wouldn't object to it being substituted first. 468: 17: 500:

Unneccessary templates. These rosters are already included in the team season pages. Separate templates are not needed or used.

2895: 2887: 1376:

Knowledge talk:Translation#RfC: Expand language template family - Should editors be encouraged to translate interwiki articles?

396: 360: 324: 288: 252: 216: 180: 144: 108: 432: 2613: 1684: 464: 1700:

Just to clarify, my suggestion of the village pump was for some more general concerns that Rich Farmbrough raised. I think

1748:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1386: 392: 356: 320: 284: 248: 212: 176: 140: 104: 60: 1800: 428: 2970: 2960: 2646: 2590: 2891: 2477: 1860: 3169: 1796: 1753: 1704:

would be the best place to discuss any concerns particular to translating articles from other Wikimedia projects. --

3061: 2251: 2204: 2172: 1701: 1688: 1486: 1375: 654: 3448: 3427: 3398: 3384: 3364: 3344: 3276: 3254: 3050: 2987: 2940: 2917: 2881: 2847: 2816: 2801: 2779: 2766: 2743: 2707: 2684: 2666: 2602: 2536: 2519: 2481: 2456: 2435: 2416: 2393: 2372: 2358: 2329: 2309: 2287: 2257: 2241: 2210: 2178: 2128: 2067: 2050: 2031: 2013: 1960: 1902: 1881: 1864: 1845: 1789: 1738: 1713: 1695: 1674: 1656: 1624: 1601: 1564: 1545: 1525: 1452: 1322: 1301: 1283: 1231: 1169: 1146: 1131: 1114: 1095: 1072: 1049: 1026: 1011: 992: 973: 876: 814: 794: 771: 750: 729: 711: 591: 575: 558: 541: 509: 97: 3463: 3029: 3002: 2902: 2609: 2577: 2561: 2551: 2108: 2082: 1943: 1917: 1769: 1596: 1337: 1242: 1210: 1184: 855: 829: 630: 604: 76: 3462: