Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 30



Template:Please don't change this page

 * 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 move. to Introduction (historical)/2/Template and then redirect with an r from merge. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC) The sole purpose of this page was its one transclusion formerly on Introduction (historical)/2. After all of the subpages of Wikipedia:Introduction were moved after Introduction was repurposed and its former function deemed historical, this template no longer serves a purpose. And even if the reliant page hadn't been moved, I would have suggested this be substituted and deleted (the sole transclusion has already been substituted) since 1) it has no utility to be used anywhere else (one transclusion, not intended to be used elsewhere), and 2) the name of the template is misleading and could make editors assume it has something to do with full page protection. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't change this page
 * Redirect to Introduction (historical)/2. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Pppery. This takes care of any confusion while also preserving the talk page, which contains some very early (2005) stuff that might be of mild historical interest. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (requested to comment) Delete not linked to or from anything anymore...useless page. History of the page is just about redirection no real content.-- Moxy 🍁 20:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "Redirect" comments: Then why not move the history of this page, to say, Introduction (historical)/2/Template and then redirect that to Introduction (historical)/2? That preserves the edit history, and moves this page out of the "Template:" namespace away from the confusing WP:XNR title. As it stands, none of the points/concerns I have brought up in my nomination statement have been addressed, and this issue seems to be a red herring that is deterring from the concerns I have stated in the nomination statement. Steel1943  (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, that'd be fine too. The main point is, yeah, let's get this out of the way of anything active where it could cause confusion. I think it's an interesting example of how early editors came up with an idiosyncratic approach to solving an issue, but it's certainly not serving any other purpose now. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see a convincing reason to keep, and the WP:OWN that this page entails to me indicates it should be deleted. Redirect would be a second-best option. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN? The template's title message is directed at beginners doing a tutorial, so I don't think that policy is very relevant. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * redirect to Introduction (historical)/2 or move and redirect per above. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2020 (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:Please don't edit this page

 * 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 move. to Introduction (historical)/3/Template, then redirect with an r from merge. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC) The sole purpose of this page was its one transclusion formerly on Introduction (historical)/3. After all of the subpages of Wikipedia:Introduction were moved after Introduction was repurposed and its former function deemed historical, this template no longer serves a purpose. And even if the reliant page hadn't been moved, I would have suggested this be substituted and deleted (the sole transclusion has already been substituted) since 1) it has no utility to be used anywhere else (one transclusion, not intended to be used elsewhere), and 2) the name of the template is misleading and could make editors assume it has something to do with full page protection. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit this page
 * Redirect to Introduction (historical)/3 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Pppery. This takes care of any confusion while also preserving the talk page, which contains some very early (2005) stuff that might be of mild historical interest. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (requested to comment) Delete not linked to or from anything anymore...useless page. History of the page is just about redirection no real content.-- Moxy 🍁 20:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "Redirect" comments: Then why not move the history of this page, to say, Introduction (historical)/3/Template and then redirect that to Introduction (historical)/3? That preserves the edit history, and moves this page out of the "Template:" namespace away from the confusing WP:XNR title. As it stands, none of the points/concerns I have brought up in my nomination statement have been addressed, and this issue seems to be a red herring that is deterring from the concerns I have stated in the nomination statement. Steel1943  (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, that'd be fine too. The main point is, yeah, let's get this out of the way of anything active where it could cause confusion. I think it's an interesting example of how early editors came up with an idiosyncratic approach to solving an issue, but it's certainly not serving any other purpose now. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see a convincing reason to keep, and the WP:OWN that this page entails to me indicates it should be deleted. Redirect would be a second-best option. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN? The template's title message is directed at beginners doing a tutorial, so I don't think that policy is very relevant. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Introduction (historical)/3 or move and redirect per above. Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2020 (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).

College football independent records

 * 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 - F ASTILY   01:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC) The templates are now unused, having been replaced by regional templates; see Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 23 and Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 5 for two similar nominations. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1886 college football records
 * 1887 college football records
 * 1888 college football records
 * 1906 IAAUS independents football records
 * 1907 IAAUS independents football records
 * 1908 IAAUS independents football records
 * 1909 IAAUS independents football records
 * 1910 NCAA independents football records
 * 1911 NCAA independents football records
 * 1912 NCAA independents football records
 * 1913 NCAA independents football records
 * 1914 NCAA independents football records
 * 1915 NCAA independents football records
 * 1916 NCAA independents football records
 * 1917 NCAA independents football records
 * 1918 NCAA independents football records
 * 1919 NCAA independents football records
 * 1920 NCAA independents football records
 * 1921 NCAA independents football records
 * 1922 NCAA independents football records
 * 1923 NCAA independents football records
 * 1924 NCAA independents football records
 * 1928 NCAA independents football records
 * 1929 NCAA independents football records
 * Delete all per established consensus to replace these with regional templates. Cbl62 (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all; we have replaced these templates with regional ones and therefore these are no longer needed. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 23:32, 1 May 2020 (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).

2020 association football leagues 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 2020 May 7. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 2020_Belarusian_Premier_League_table
 * 2020_Kazakhstan_Premier_League_table
 * 2020_Belarusian_Second_League_Group_A_table
 * 2020_Belarusian_Second_League_Group_B_table
 * 2020_Belarusian_Second_League
 * 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:False version

 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Maintenance templates describe issues with an article, such as the article being possibly outdated, non-neutral or otherwise requiring improvement, and are removed when the issue is fixed. This does not appear to be possible here. There are slightly similar tags like current event, but even these are directed at improving or maintaining the article. Wikipedia is not a news provider, nor should an encyclopedic article give undue weight to hoaxes in this way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * False version
 * Additional concern: This is essentially original research placed in a big orange box above an article. The discussion that led to its creation can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. The only mainspace transclusion is at the top of Blood irradiation therapy. It sets a problematic precedent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To give the TL;DR, blood irradiation therapy went from about 50 views per day to around 30,000, and we learned it's because a manufactured version is spreading on social media. This notice, while somewhat unusual, was designed to alert readers of that. I agree with you that it doesn't quite fit squarely as a maintenance template, since it's not about edits that need to be made to the article. So I have no objection to reformatting/reclassifying it somehow. But in an IAR sense, I feel strongly that it was needed. Last Saturday, 99.8% (that's math, not hyperbole) of readers on that page were there because of the false version, and the fact it was false was essential information to communicate to them prominently. The view counts have dropped since then, and it's hard to tell whether that was because of the notice or just the image running its course, but we're Wikipedia — we don't mess with misinformation. Was it OR in some sense? Sure. Would leaving it out have improved Wikipedia's ability to provide information to readers? Absolutely not. And that takes precedence for me. I doubt this is the only time we're ever going to see something like this — we need to adapt to the information ecosystem we now live in, and the template is a step in that direction. Courtesty pinging discussion participants &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. It did seem to me that it was useful for the blood irradiation article to have some kind of warning on it a couple of days ago, given the enormous spike in traffic it received, so whatever happens to this template I am glad Sdkb decided to be bold and put it there. Wikipedia is at risk of being co-opted into misinformation campaigns by people circulating nonsense and claiming they got it from Wikipedia, and relying on the average Facebooker not following this up to check. There is a legitimate question about whether there are many other articles where this template or something like it needs to be displayed, since it has only been used on one so far so is perhaps a strange outlier. It doesn't seem quite right though to dismiss the idea of having such a warning as original research specifically. Whether it's a good idea or not is a separate matter to concerns about editors inserting their own research findings or other ideas into the text of articles uncited. A suggestion: there is a talk page template to highlight when an article has been used in or the subject of media coverage. This is aimed at editors rather than readers to help them understand the context of an article, and I think it would be at least as useful for editors to know that a fake version of an article is being circulated online. Moving it to the talk page would defeat Sdkb's objective of warning the reader to be careful though. Beorhtwulf (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is probably some larger policy discussion we need to have at WP, maybe at the Village Pump, about how to deal with widely distributed faked Wikipedia articles. These harm our reputation and for medical topics, could even potentially cause some harm. Until we come to consensus on that, I think this template is a good initial effort in that direction. It lets the reader know that bogus versions of the article are circulating and to wary of them. To me, such a warning is consistent with our mission of providing neutral, accurate information. Because such a caution is meta-information about the article, rather than the topic itself, a template at the top seems the appropriate place to put it. I appreciate the nom's concern that this could be abused, but the initial use was a good one and future uses can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. I am inclined to keep this template until we have that wider discussion. -- 11:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion per Sdkb and Mark viking. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2020 (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).