Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 27



Module:Further

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) &#x222F; WBG converse 08:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Module no longer used in its associated template Template:Further per this; for some reason I didn't think to simply do that when I merged Module:Details in a few months back.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Further
 * Delete Consensus has shown that this kind of obsolete module should be deleted (yay! one fewer extraneous hatnote module) &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete It's nothing but a shell around other modules, like Module:Labelled list hatnote. ("Labelled"? With two L's? Odd.) Module:Further requires the LLH module anyway, so calling it directly serves the same purpose while eliminating wrapper code. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused and unneccessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2018 (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).

Template:Birley family tree

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Delayed Conditional Deletion. In the event that no source on the topic is located, that verifies the content of the template, within a span of six months, the template can be deleted. (non-admin closure) &#x222F; WBG converse 08:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Unsourced since 2015 Magioladitis (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Birley family tree
 * Comment This is "Templates for discussion" not "Templates for deletion" and User:Magioladitis has not indicated what is to be discussed (such as delete, find sources, or whatever). -- PBS (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * True. I sent it here to raise attention on this template. PBS's solution seems nice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I requested sources with this edit at 10:09, 5 April 2015. At that time I made this request on a lot of similar templates. A year later User:Magioladitis removed the request for sources at 22:14, 30 April 2016 with the editorial comment "not the place to hide tag". So while it is true that the template is not sourced, I think it is disingenuous of User:Magioladitis to state "Unsourced since 2015" as it was User:Magioladitis who removed the request for sources and has made this request (to delete?) within hours of the template requesting sources being reinserted with an undone edit. IMHO the correct action for User:Magioladitis  to have taken one year after the request for citations was not to remove the tag but to have either left it in place or to have requested its deletion at that time. -- PBS (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Two questions for @User:Magioladitis Please explain what you mean by "not the place to hide tag": If the request for citations is not included in a family template where should the template be placed? Second have you removed any other such request for citation tags from family templates? -- PBS (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep for now and keep the request for sources, so that other editors are aware that citations are required and that they are given time to find sources. If in six months citations are not added then a request for deletion can be made. -- PBS (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PBS The tag reads "this section..." and the template was in an article section, so I think the correct place to add this tag is in the article itself and not in the template since the tag refers to an article section and a given section may contain refernces outside the template. A template like this can be used in various places and usually the references go in to the article itself. Moreover, I cheched back then, and the templates were in collapsed state making the tag unreadble till someone pressed the "Show button". Meanwhile, it was shown in a weird way from my mobile. On whether I removed more templates: reverted some (perhaps all?) of my edits back then. I do not recall more details of what happened 2.5 years ago. I noticed that I did not insist in my edits. This page jumped in my watchlist recently due to your edit. Other similar templates have been sent for TfD Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_27, relisted at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_5 and they survived. I did not partiipate in these discussions back then. I do not insist in deleting the templates just would like a solution of what to do with templates that may/may not require references since 2015. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This template is transclused into about 40 articles. It is impractical and indeed undesirable to add it into all those articles and at any time a new article may include it. If someone was to add a citation to one of the boxes or more of the boxes then it would be be necessary for that editor to edit the 40 articles changing the to  which is a lot of extra unnecessary work. Hence it makes much more sense to place a request for citations into the template itself. Trees are an optional extra. The reason why they are collapsed is a compromise between those who like them and those who would prefer if Wikipeida did not include them in articles. Placing the request for citation into the template has three advantages. (1) it can display on any page that it appears. (2) It acts as a heads-up to readers that the tree is not sourced and so may contain original research or errors (for editors potential violations of two of the core content policies WP:NOR and WP:V). (3) As the templates is collapsed if a reader/editor does not open the collapsed box to view the tree they do not need to see the heads-up which when the box is collapsed is visually obtrusive as it is larger than the collapsed box -- this is something I considered when I placed them inside the collapsed box as I could have placed it above the collapse box to appear in all the articles even if the box was collapsed. -- PBS (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PBS I think you might want to use the reason because at least I got confused and what exactly needs citation. Certain names? The entire tree? Maybe use citation needed in the places the reference is required? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The template displays "This section does not cite any sources." which ought not to be confusing. Placing a "citation needed" next to every leaf on the tree is unnecessary, as explained in foot note 4 of the Verifiability policy "It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with unreferencedsection, ...". -- PBS (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PBS OK, since you have these templates in your watchlist and you have a good plan, let's 'close this discussion and see what happens in 6 months from now. I do not have mot of the templates in my watchlist so I won't probably see the discussion in 6 months unless someones pings me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have the templates in my watch list. It was chance. I added a death year (2018) to the Lucy Ferry article listed in the template, and saw the deletion request. -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2018 (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).

RC Narbonne and US Dax squad templates

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 August 7. (non-admin closure) &#x222F; WBG converse 08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RC_Narbonne_squad
 * US_Dax_squad
 * 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).