Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 2



Template:Culture of region

 * 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, but make it possible (or automatic) to suppress redlinks. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Culture of region

Generic template that is causing thousands of red links over many articles. Navboxes are for linking to related existing articles about the subject, not for listing every possible combination of subject-subarticle as per Red link Our policy is that Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers - "See Template:Culture of the Central African Republic for example." Moxy (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I notice some talk of modifying the template recently. If your keep or delete vote is hinging on this, well it's been updated in the sandbox to "fix" the redlinking. Examples are on the testcases page. — Bility (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: A navbox of regional culture links sounds fine, this template should just stop auto-linking every possible article. — Bility (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This was created to standardise the formatting of the already-present culture sidebar templates. By having the logic central to this template, rather than scattered about over dozens of separate bits of code, it's probably easier to avoid including scattershot links. For the red link problem, the sensible solution would be to have  only include links if there's actually an article at the other end. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Just because it is creating red links is not a reason for deletion. Just change the coding so that it doesn't show the red links per the above comment. --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The existence of this template, with all its red links, is what led me to create the article Monuments of Tonga, to turn a red link blue. Maybe the red links in the templates will lead to other articles being created too...? Aridd (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the other 17 red links? This template had now before now 16 red links.Moxy (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:REDNOT also states "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set" This looks like the exception to me.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with this TfD but… What if there are no World Heritage Sites in that region? What if there is no National Anthem? I don't think REDNOT should be interpreted such that we create red links that can never be turned blue. — Bility (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not a series  at all. O well I see that this is going nowhere...Just cant stand thousands of red links all over.


 * Keep, as Pinkkeith said, the coding just needs to be changes so it doesn't always show red links. --Mateom28 (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep - Useful nav/infobox, redlinks are not bad. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone fix this as recommended, if not removal will start soon on pages that are just red links. As stated some have only a few blue links. Wish more care was taken when spamming this allover. Does it help our readers navigate the topics......NOT AT ALL - and now we have to go fixing thousands of red links. Not sure all understand the problem as many of the red links have articles that are simply titled wrong because of this generic template. Who is going to redirect all these to the right place? - I see things like Template:Culture of North America templates an wonder if all understand what nav templates are for.Moxy (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be fixed easily, but consensus for that should take place on the template talk page, where there is an open RfC. I think it was rather poor form to open a TfD while the RfC you also initiated was still ongoing, by the way. — Bility (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I opened this talk because the "consensus on the talk page" (Rcf) was to "fix it" or have "it removed" (24 March last post). So here I am tryng to fix it or have it removed. As seen on the talk page we are trying to fix thousands of red links that may actually have articles but the templates generic coding does not see them. Basically we have a template that does not match the name of the articles - nor does it take into account what other cultures call these links. So here we are still with thousands of red links to "articles" and "portals" that may or may not be there. As seen on the talk page (not here) the removal arguments are based on policy  not on the fact that someone thinks theses thousands of articles need to be written. In fact we have a secondary problem that redirects to categories are being made to get rid of red links. Not sure this make work project is good at all.  Moxy (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Since when were red links bad? One of the whole points of Wikipedia was that you could click on a red link and expand the wiki. Deletionists seem to be on a rampage. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:REDNOT - Red links are generally not included in either See also sections nor in navigational boxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)


 * Keep - The red links are an opportunity to expand the encyclopedia and provide a useful framework. I just created an article after seeing a red link on one of these templates, something I would not have even thought of without the red link.Tobyc75 (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This template is quite useful, it is used on many related pages not as tagging but as a navigational tool to help people find related topics and ultimately whatever section or page they were looking for, and as mentioned above redlinks can be expanded into new articles, This template is not harmful in any way. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 18 red links is helpful Template:Culture of the Federated States of Micronesia? Moxy (talk)


 * Delete - This is redundant to the existing similar navigational box templates that already exist. Additionally it supplants more detailed templates such as the "Cuisine of xxx" templates that are being use in cuisine articles. Look at Italian cuisine to see what I am referring to. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't like red links? Make them blue.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not only about making articles or portals - its that many of the articles/portals are already there - this template simply does not see them because it gueese at the names of these pages  - Lots and lots of  cleanup work here - the temple was not made with forethought at all.    -  - what do we do about portals as see at Culture of the Federated States of Micronesia that links to Portal:Federated States of Micronesia that should be pointing to Portal:Micronesia. I guess i did not explain myself properly here as there is hundreds of links to fix - that 2 weeks ago was all normal.Moxy (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with redirects in such cases? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A navbox whose links all go to the same page is obviously not useful. Hiding redlinks is a more sensible approach in this case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Moxy... and thanks for a detailed explanation why. Poeticbent talk 10:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. A undesired glitch that can be fixed by a coding change is not a valid reason for deletion, certainly not when it comes to a useful template transcluded on over 700 pages.  RJC  TalkContribs 15:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Make all links #ifexists because navigational boxes are supposed to link primarily to existing articles. This kind of red link behavior isn't targeted and it doesn't really contribute anything useful to the encyclopedia, rather it seems to promote large amounts of pointless auto-generated articles... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The template should be modified so it is possible to suppress the display of red links which can never have an article (and leave in place those which should have one but don't). If that's technically unfeasible, this template should be deleted and replaced with a set of region-specific templates. Ease of maintenance is important, but not at the expense of having to display nonsensical links.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 12, 2012; 13:51 (UTC)
 * Keep. While all of the micronations, ethnic groups in exile, groups-imaginarily-in-exile, and groups-imaginary-altogether can cause a proliferation of red links to imaginary topics, there are plenty of highly relevant articles using this template. With the potential for more. Personally I bumped into this template when searching for information on Somali culture, and at least there it seems to be both widely spread within Wikipedia, plus rather well-used.
 * I'd argue that the problem with red/dangling links should be handled a) directly, b) programmatically, and c) without prejudice to either template or article. Namely, I'd argue for 1) programmatic removal of red links after a certain period of time without a target appearing for them, 2) an automatic notification to the author (and whom else besides?) after a shorter period beginning with the creation of the link, and 3) perhaps an automatically retained back cache of such links which can be seen, prioritized by frequency, somewhere, by Wikipedia authors at-large. In case certain topics happen to gather wide audience from people who don't want/can/need/know to put up even a stub (cf. "the long tail"). Decoy (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an incredible amount of work compared to just adding the new article to a template once it's created. — Bility (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - very useful template. Redlinks can be dealt with.  The template make for easy navigation and exploration of the specific topic.  jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 00:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and keep the redlinks. The redlinks are for articles that should exist for every country in the world, and red links encourage article creation. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  15:29, 15 April 2012 (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:10 Most Populated South Australian Cities

 * 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) 01:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 10 Most Populated South Australian Cities

if to exist, would be better named as Ten most populous South Australian cities. I would suggest this is unnecessary; Cities in South Australia should do, as there are not a lot of them Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think we have this for any other Australian state (or indeed for any equivalent entity worldwide) and I don't think it adds much, if any, value to the articles it is placed on. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2012 (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.