Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 April 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

April 10

edit

Template:Infobox British National Vegetation Classification community

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2026 April 19. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox basketball association

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Template:Infobox sport governing body. Now unused after conversion of ~25 small articles to the former. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ 14:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Discogs artist

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 per WP:SNOW. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A problematic template which relies on an untrustworthy source (Discogs) that is full of user-generated content, therefore failing WP:USERG. Anything that's frowned upon for in-text sourcing is also by extension something we're better off avoiding within template links. It therefore should be deleted and serves no useful purpose by only leading readers to often-dubious (or at least flawed) pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As per WP:DISCOGS, the only reason Discogs was not deprecated was so it could used as an external link like this. I've been going through and removing citations to Discogs over the last couple of months, and have removed about 3,000 already. From my experience doing this, I can assure you that more than half the time Discogs is used as an external link, it is not formatted with this template; it is just formatted as a regular external link (Incidentally I'm not deleting external links, only citations in the body). Deleting this template is only going to succeed in getting Discogs out of external links if Discogs itself is deprecated, which I would very much support. Otherwise, I think it's not addressing the issue at hand. Also, what about Template:Discogs release, Template:Discogs master and Template:Discogs label? Would you propose they be deleted on the same grounds or are they a different story? Damien Linnane (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully endorse deleting those too, and if I previously knew about their existence, then I would've added them before to this thread. The site should've been deprecated altogether years ago. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listing those wasn't helpful to begin with, so restoring them be completely pointless. It's illogical and at best inconsistent to suggest any publication that should be avoided as a reference could possibly be useful as anything else on Wikipedia. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compared to Discogs or IMDb, I don't tend to see people attempting to use Wikipedia articles as citations or external links of sections very often, though for the record I also certainly wouldn't recommend such WP:CIRCULAR sourcing for claims. One difference is that we have the ability to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia pages by inserting better things (with countless people striving to do that) while Discogs and IMDb conversely don't seem very dedicated to fixing their errors or even providing credible references to back up claims. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • People link Wikipedia articles internally, naturally. Where the "Anything that's frowned upon for in-text sourcing is also by extension something we're better off avoiding" and "It's illogical and at best inconsistent to suggest any publication that should be avoided as a reference could possibly be useful as anything else" arguments fall apart, for me, is we shouldn't internally link to other Wikipedia articles either, if that were the case. Validusername (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comparison is faulty due to making a false equivalence: it's not like anybody inserting internal links for other pages is attempting to use them as sources, nor could we have internal links to any non-Wikipedia pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • We aren't discussing "attempting to use them as sources" but external links to "sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" (quoting WP:ELMAYBE) and/or information beyond the scope of Wikipedia articles, such as an album with over 1500 unique versions. Validusername (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discogs often appears to pull claims out of nowhere instead of relying on knowledgeable sources to support its content (or at least neglects to specify whichever ones it goes off of and this lack of transparency is suspicious), so I'm inclined to say that isn't good enough to meet WP:ELMAYBE. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_April_10&oldid=1349919165"