Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 13



Template:Affliction Events

 * 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. 28bytes (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Affliction Events

This mixed martial arts promotion only held two events (the third was cancelled at the last minute). The events are notable themselves, but there is no reason for them to be in their own template. The promotion is defunct and there are no plans for future events. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:Cruiser class

 * 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) 14:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cruiser class

old, unused infobox template, replaced by other templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:Croydon Labour Profile

 * 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) 14:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Croydon Labour Profile

old, orphaned labour statistics box, which is not used by Croydon. Even if it were used, we don't need a separate special template to hold the information. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:Cross River Tram start

 * 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) 14:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cross River Tram start

old, orphaned succession box for a cancelled tram. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:Scref

 * 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) 14:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Scref
 * Scnote

Currently used in 29 articles. Reuse of the same scref results in duplicate HTML ids and invalid HTML. For example, List of recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award currently has 740 validation errors. Can be replaced by standard footnote markup. See the history of Agnes Hewes for an example. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume scnote is a co-nom here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Added. I was double checking use, since scnote was using cnote in some instances. There are other variants that I will be working soon.---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've used scref/scnote when (as suggested at scnote "a reference is used a large number of times, creating a huge and ugly number of backlinks". Is there a more HTML-friendly way to do this? Dsp13 (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Listref does not create backlinks; see the doc page for examples. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I see Gadget's started removing the template from some pages already. Dsp13 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to see these pages migrate to use the new listref (which Gadget's very helpfully enriched, so that now it seems to offer editors essentially the same functionality as scref), and delete per nom. Dsp13 (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:Weasel-inline

 * 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. 28bytes (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weasel-inline

As said about peacock terms: "You see a 'peacock term', you fix it. The template just disfigures the article, is feature creep, and its existence is in conflict with our vaunted principle of 'so fix it'." Same principle applies here for weasel words. Let's encourage people to fix it - not just tag stuff. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm actually keener on keeping this than on yesterday's series of inline nominations. With weasel words it's not always obvious who the some that the text refers to are, and it may be non-trivial to fix that (because rewording to elide the words "some say" may inappropriately represent opinion as fact, while it may be quite a bit of work nailing down the source). Quite different from "this is an external link, please delete it or turn it into a reference", like external links-inline, where the fix is semi-mechanical. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I have to wait until you have consensus here to remove this from Tea Party movement? It's in the first paragraph of a high traffic article. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SusanLesch: It looks like it's already been dealt with, but I'd say the best thing to do in such a case would be to take the time to research/rewrite the offending statement. Prominent appearance in a prominent article warrants the effort.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The question was already discussed on the article's talk page before you started discussion here I bet. In any case, thank you to the editor who removed it. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Chris Cunningham/thumperward says, simply removing weasel words can misrepresent dubious statements as fact.  We could use plain old citation needed for such cases, but this template explains the objection more clearly, so I see that as a loss.  Either way we've got an inline editorial marker. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per DragonHawk. Makes a complaint specific and easier to fix. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking at the list of examples given at WP:WEASEL, the purpose is served adequately and in fact more clearly by other inline templates: ... some people say, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it was proved .... --Lambiam 00:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. That seems like a fair point, although I would say that weasel-inline might still be useful for cases where it's not a who/what/when/where/why thing, but still weaselly.  •  In any event, supposing consensus is that weasel-inline is not useful, what do we do with the many existing transclusions?  Just deleting it outright would seem to loose valid critisim.  Perhaps deprecation (don't delete, but don't add new transclusions) would be the best thing? — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the template should not be deleted until an alternative is in place. I count 712 transclusions in articles, too many for manual resolution. A simple solution is to redirect and its aliases to, which is never wrong (unless the original tagging with  was grossly inappropriate), and often actually more to the point. (For two of many examples, see Mahmud of Ghazni.) Template redirects are possible, although discouraged; however, a bot could then at its leisure replace all occurrences, whereupon the template and aliases can be deleted.  --Lambiam 20:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per DragonHawk. I don't see the arguments for deletion as persuasive. -- Klein zach  02:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.