Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

January 27[edit]

Template:Company template tagline[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) 05:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Company template tagline (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

I'm betting this is going to be controversial, but I don't see the point in making every company's navigational template one line thicker with the info that (1) usually needs sources with inline citations, so it is unsuitable for a navigation template that comes after the references (stuff like that in an infobox can be cited properly), and (2) seems to be poorly maintained and is years out of date. It reminds me of some people's obsession with their stock symbol and its price at certain companies. (They wanted it everywhere!) Except in this template we just have the revenue instead (and no. of employees), which is probably even more weird as a choice of significant statistic, as the company can well lose money and have a big revenue posted etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:Nav says no EL in templates....William 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless. Csworldwide1 (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as I just stumbled upon this discussion, seeing templates with external links on them seem not navigable, rather than linking to related pages, we're looking at promotional business figures. ///EuroCarGT 00:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete This information belongs in an infobox on the company's page, if it has one. --NSH002 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the consensus to retain it is no longer there, let's remove it. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:02, 31 January 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:DorlandsDict[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 for now Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:DorlandsDict (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

As stated here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Template DorlandsDict, the link no longer works. This is a template used in displaying citations in a unified format, however fails our guidelines by failing to include an access date. As this is no longer working, propose delete. Perhaps when there was less content, this would be useful, but as it is, I do not think this is a useful link; and content provided on the service is already contained within the articles and may be gleaned from better sources. LT910001 (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Spoke too hastily, some links still appear to work, generally pointing to copies that are archived in a web archive website. citations--LT910001 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Keep – it is used in references and should be marked with dead link (if the web site is dead). Christian75 (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • fix, or delete When the links are broken, they cannot be fixed. When they are not broken, they point to web archive. Dorlands does not allow free links to its content. Fix by rewriting the template to point to the print version of the dictionary, or delete the template.Ordinary reader (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • comment or redirect to {{citation needed}} Christian75 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I followed some links and it seemed to be working. The rationale for deletion was that the template does not work and supporting evidence of this has not been presented. If the template is not working then I would reconsider. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Link is working just fine and it is a reliable source as well. Wintereu (user talk) 17:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • keep (changing my opinion) However this template is not working as designed. Supporting evidence is that many of the links are broken and cannot be fixed. All of the broken links should be removed or replaced with links to a different dictionary.
Examples:
Hernia. Internet archive said "Got an HTTP 302 response at crawl time".

"hernia" at Dorland's Medical Dictionary

Orthostatic hypotension. Points to an Internet archive page that is a MerckSource error page.

"Orthostatic hypotension" at Dorland's Medical Dictionary

Lymphatic system. "Got an HTTP 302 response at crawl time".

"lymphoid tissue" at Dorland's Medical Dictionary

These were the first three that I checked today. these broken links cannot be made to work within the DorlandsDict templateOrdinary reader (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like we're keeping the template and replacing bad transclusions. (User:Ordinary reader, I hope you don't mind me crossing out your first !vote. It's easier for others to see which one changed, that way.) —PC-XT+ 02:44, 10 February 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:US 97[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) 05:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:US 97 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Only one entry in this navbox: this is WP:NENAN territory. TCN7JM 00:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete—per nom. My rule of thumb is about 4–5 links, and this has just the two (US 97, US 197) which isn't enough. Imzadi 1979  00:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Only tranlc'ed on one page (not even the main page of this navbox), and really... not everything needs a navbox. Can very easily be replaced with a simple "See also" section on U.S. Route 97 and U.S. Route 197. --AdmrBoltz 13:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete especially due to the navbox having a list of external links for no special reason.—Loginnigol (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree with above statements. It seems silly to have just one link. c16sh (speak up) 06:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. U.S. highways have a standardised navbox system, and this is part of it. Having US 97 one of the US highways without one is not helpful to Wikipedia's readers. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    Neither is this navbox. It's completely redundant wherever you transclude it because the page that isn't bolded in the navbox is already linked to multiple times. TCN7JM on the Road 15:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    I should also note that US highways don't really have a standardized navbox system. Category:United States highway templates shows, by my count, eighteen of these "related routes to US XX" templates (including the one up for discussion here). This is out of many, many main US highways that could possibly have one. TCN7JM 18:02, 8 February 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.