< April 1 April 3 >

April 2

[edit]


Template:Culture of region

[edit]
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)[reply]

Template:Culture of region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Part of a series on the
Culture of the Federated States of Micronesia
History
People
Languages
Religion
Music
Sport
Symbols

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 Wikipedia:Red link#Avoiding creation of certain types of red links. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
What about the other 17 red links? This template had now before now 16 red links.Moxy (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a series at all. O well I see that this is going nowhere...Just cant stand thousands of red links all over.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
18 red links is helpful Template:Culture of the Federated States of Micronesia? Moxy (talk)
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)[reply]
What's wrong with redirects in such cases? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

[edit]
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)[reply]

Template:10 Most Populated South Australian Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)[reply]

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.
More