Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 4



Template:WPRedirect

 * 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. There are two reasonings here. The banner that was approved within the project seems to have been rejected by this community. A banner that has not been approved within the WikiProject Redirect community first does not belong in template space. Either the template is live and as it is written, this is the intent, then the consensus is towards delete. A WikiProject, however notable, still remains only a part of the community. Alternatively, if this is not a live template, it shouldn't be in template space until it is ready to go. Completely unsolicited advice, but I would have the WikiProject state that the project banner will only be in template space for the limited redirect templates and on article space for articles that are missing a set type of redirects (and removed when completed) (i.e. getting all the former names of Bank of America made into redirects under Template:R from predecessor company name). The closest parallel would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts which focuses on types of articles to be created and assists in their creation but does not actually affect articlespace as their end goal is to have completion of the article, i.e. there is an endpoint to this (maybe importance not quality is the criteria that should be created). If someone would like it moved to draft or userspace, I'll do that as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * WPRedirect

This template was created literally today. This template is a WikiProject banner for WikiProject Redirect. The scope of that project is every redirect on Wikipedia, meaning that this template would be placed on every redirect's talk page on Wikipedia. This seems a bit excessive, given that there are potentially more redirects in existence than all other name spaces combined (not including "User:", "File:", "Education Program:", or "TimedText:" since there are almost no redirects in those name spaces). I see this template, and it kind of reminds me of the TfD discussion to delete the original version of Template:WikiProject Templates; it just seems like unnecessary administrative work, especially considering that WikiMedia software can automatically recognize if there is a redirect located at any given title. In addition, this banner essentially serves a very similar purpose to the template Talk page of redirect; just like the Frank Sinatra song goes: "You can't have one without the other!" Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 15. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Update struck per followup comments. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to that discussion: I had no idea it existed. However, from what I read in that discussion, it seems the banner templates in that nomination served a different purpose than this same-named one. (Prove me wrong, and I'll gladly tag this template with a Db-g4 myself.) Steel1943  (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are completely different templates, they were wrappers to WikiProject templates based on namespace (or in the case of WPRedirect, using on a redirect page) that set the "Class=" parameter to FILE, etc, and didn't work, because WikiProject banner parameters are not anonymous -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. A proposal is still open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect to re-introduce a banner for the WPRedirect project. When approved, a notice will be given in the documentation to the effect that the banner is not designed to go on all redirect talk pages.  It will be used for talk pages of, for example, the project page itself, talk pages of redirect category rcat templates, redirect-index talk pages, and perhaps only a few actual redirect talk pages and only then if they already exist.  This particular template would probably be used as a shortcut to WikiProject Redirect when the community decides that having a banner for the project is a good idea, if used correctly. –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX !  00:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, this template should really be userfied or moved to Draft: namespace (if that is done with templates) until consensus is formed. Otherwise, this template being live in its current state is a problem waiting to happen. Steel1943  (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Userfy. This template can, for now, be redirected to User:Paine Ellsworth/WPRBanner where my proposed banner is at present. –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX !  01:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I may have been bold in creating the template, I hadn't seen the other discussions, but it is in keeping with the examples of other WikiProjects who tag and track pages via associated talk pages. Having this ability does not mean talk pages will be created for every redirect, but for those which will be created, particularly for referencing wp:blp related pages, it only makes sense that they should be tagged as "in scope" pages; tracked through Wikiproject Redirect. Naturally the template is fully modifiable and should be customized by the project according to its needs.—John Cline (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and restrict placement to non-article pages that are usually not redirects This should be used to tag WPRedirect pages, and redirect policy pages. It should never be used to tag articlespace pages. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and modify. I think there's some value in tagging redirect categories, templates, and policy pages. Tagging every normal redirect in main article space is not a good idea. To prevent misuse of the banner, modify what happens when "|class=redirect" is invoked. I'd suggest that invoking |class=redirect should display a prominent error/warning message in the banner, and would place the page in an administrative category that is marked as not being supposed to have any members. Plantdrew (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There should also be a namespace detector wherein if the template is used in an articletalkpage it also throws an error. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with working in a conditional switch to disable its use on non-project pages.—John Cline (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be useful to tag categories (Cat:WPRedirect, Cat:Redirect templates, ...) and templates (T:R from shortcut, T:R from abbreviation, ...) if they themselves are not redirects to non-WPRedirect pages -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. We hope to go "live" with the new and improved WikiProject Redirect banner in a few days. This new banner expressly states that it "is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects.  In fact, if the template is added to the talk page of any mainspace page (to include the talk page of any mainspace redirect), then the banner will not appear and the page will be sorted to .  When this banner goes live, if we have consensus, then this template, WPRedirect, can be redirected to the banner and used as an alias/shortcut for the banner. –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX !  02:48, 17 June 2014 (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:Goat breeds of Italy

 * 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. Remember that not all redlinks are bad. This seems like a series of articles that actually could (and should) be made over time. If there is a serious concern about a breed in the template, the proper discussion is at the template's talk page, absent an actual article. However, given that you'd be asking for sources on the talk page about the breed, the articles would then be simple to create and be the more appropriate discussion. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Goat breeds of Italy

A forest of redlinks, many of which may not even be notable or verifiable, thus may not have articles even 10 years from now. This is also basically the WP:OVERCAT problem in navbox form; we don't need a profusion of animal breed navboxes categorizing things by non-defining characteristics (there is absolutely nothing about Italian goat breeds that makes them intrinsically different from any others). Even if this template is needed some day, because we have an article by then on virtually very domestic animal breed, and we decide for some reason that dividing them navigationally by region of origin (a fact users are probably looking for, not arriving with) is somehow helpful, it certainly isn't a useful template now, and can be more usefully replaced with a simple Template:Goat breeds navbox, listing the goat breed articles that are bluelinks. The template at this TfD is really someone's personal list of what articles they think ought to be created, and is better as a list in userspace or an animals wikiproject, not a frustratingly dead-end-linking template in a bunch of public-facing articles. PS: The title doesn't really make any sense anyway; animal breeds do not stay in one place, but go where ever people take them. No goat breed is really "of" Italy, only Italy. Even if the template were renamed to reflect that, it wouldn't fix the main problems at issue here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Animal breeds verified by reliable sources like DAD-IS, the FAO and other databases are pretty much inherently notable, just like species. Just like the ever-growing lists at List of cattle breeds, List of goat breeds, and List of chicken breeds, it is extremely likely that we need articles on these breeds. Thanks to hardworking editors like, it's also likely that the red links will reduce over time. In the meantime, the redlinks will help encourage people to create new articles that are useful and notable. Steven Walling • talk   00:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Steven, for that encomium! I didn't bother to reply earlier to the disruptive blether above, as it consists only of a series of misconceptions and makes no reference to our policies or guidelines. Relevant guidance is at WP:REDNOT: "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set", which obviously applies to the goat breeds of Italy; and at WP:NAVBOX, where the passage "In general text colors should be consistent with Wikipedia text color defaults, so links should be blue ; dead links should be red ; and red and blue should not be used for other (non-link) text" makes it clear that redlinks in navboxes are contemplated. This navbox also fulfils each of the five criteria for a "good template" in the following paragraph of that guideline. Admittedly, it could be argued that fifty goats can hardly qualify as "a small, well-defined group of articles"; however, given that there are reportedly 1223 goat breeds in the world at the moment, I suggest that dividing them by region is preferable to 's suggestion of putting them all on one template. I'm open to suggestions as to how they might better be divided, but note that the principal world authority on breed status has chosen to accept national boundaries as a criterion. Oh, and, er ... Keep, per . Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2014 (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:Source roy

 * 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) 01:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Source roy
 * source_alexander
 * source_anderson
 * source_aston
 * source_ccj
 * source_dixon-green
 * source_gordon
 * source_gordon_1948
 * source_haldane
 * source_munby
 * source_watson
 * source_wyness
 * source_watson-allan

With this edit, the template is orphaned. It is a hard-coded citation and falls under WP:T3. I will be listing the other templates at User:WikiWriter/Templates as well (some remain in use but they can all be subst in the same format as they all are general book citations contained in the same manner). Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Subst and Delete all low or single use templates that obfuscate the source's wikicoded text -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2014 (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:CurrentRxCOTW

 * 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) 01:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * CurrentRxCOTW

Unused and part of an inactive collaboration. Magioladitis (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2014 (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:Linkin Park songs

 * 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 history merge Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Linkin Park songs

There is no need of this template when one template of Linkin Park singles exists! The sorting of the songs is done according to the tracklist of a particular album and not according to the release date. Naam toh suna hi hoga (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with this! I think it should be redirected to singles template! Chopra.nitin96 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If consensus is to delete/redirect, this should be done by reverting Linkin Park songs to the version listing singles only, deleting the split Linkin Park singles, and moving Linkin Park songs back to Linkin Park singles, in order to keep the edit history together. SiBr4 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * history merge Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2014 (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.