Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 14

< September 13	September 15 >

September 14

Template:River Song stories

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:River Song stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think that, with the exception of the Master, single characters are just not needing of their own templates. I just don't see what purpose this serves, other than to clutter up the bottom of pages. U-Mos (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm afraid I disagree; why should the Master be excepted? Song is not a regular companion, as listed in the opening credits, but a major recurring ally whom plots (and nearly two whole seasons) revolve around. I'd say the character is perfectly suited for a template. Stolengood (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that most characters do not need their own templates but in this case Stolengood's logic is spot-on. Once a character has reached a certain level of importance within the work of fiction, which we can say about River Song, there is a high chance that readers will look up articles based on this character's appearance and the template serves a useful purpose for readers who wish to quickly access those articles without having to open the article about her and navigate through its prose to find them. And unlike with articles, templates can indeed be kept because they are "useful"; I think this is such a case. Regards So Why 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the template is useful because River Song is not a character who is on a show for Season/Series X and so on; her appearences are occasional and a casual reader may need to use them to jump around. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's clutter and a bad precedent. Firstly, the article's prose does cover the character's appearances. Secondly, this isn't a Doctor Who which-character-appears-where database. And finally, all those "UNIT stories" etc. templates need to go as well. It belongs in the Wikipedia of four years ago, but not the Wikipedia of today.Zythe (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify I would oppose removing the "UNIT stories", "Dalek stories" etc. templates. I think they're useful, as they're (for want of a better term) a specific type of Doctor Who story. The Master I feel is the same. Single characters such as Jack Harkness, who was given a swiftly-deleted template a couple of years back, I don't feel are. River Song is a bit of a grey area, but I think her role (and the closeness of her appearances) make a template of this sort useless for her. U-Mos (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful navigational template for a major recurring fictional character. I agree with SoWhy's reasoning on this - it may not matter much to more knowledgeable readers whether this template is kept or deleted, but deletion would make the topic much more difficult to navigate for readers who are not so clued-up on Doctor Who. Super Mario Man 03:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it's quite the opposite. Non-clued up readers can turn to the article, which contextualises the appearances in its Appearances section, from a real world perspective. The template is just pleasing to fans.Zythe (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But surely the point of this template, like that of many of the templates on Wikipedia, is to provide the kind of instant reference that being forced to read through the text of an article does not? As hinted at above, my "Keep" vote is based not so much on the presence of a compelling reason for retention as the absence of a compelling reason for deletion. Super Mario Man 15:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would like to contribute onto this discussion and I agree with all of those in favour of keeping the template. River Song is a major character of the revived series at the moment, and she may be for a few more seasons to come. If the Master can be excepted, then why not River? The Master is quite unlikely to return various (if any) times in the future but, looking at the next three years of Doctor Who, River Song is no where near completed her tenure. It was revealed that she has met a future Doctor and Matt Smith is still portraying the Doctor until at least 2013. I am in favour of keeping this template as I, as a reader of Wikipedia, would like to be able to navigate throughout pages with ease and templates get the job done for me. Rhain1999 (talk), 17:03, 18 September 2011 (AEST)

You're making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The template doesn't do what you're saying it does for you, either, as the episodes are all linked (in context!) in the article itself.Zythe (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What article? Rhain1999 (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2011 (AEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.118.74 (talk)

Delete Unlike the Master, she hasn't been in enough episodes to really justify the template, and all the episodes she's in are covered sufficiently in the article itself. Kuralyov (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful template for a character with a complicated storyline. Hektor (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2011 (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:The 97X Green Room albums

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) 00:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The 97X Green Room albums (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Album articles were deleted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2011 (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:Official policy

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 and replace with {{legal policy}}. The consensus is pretty clear that there shouldn't be a special template for a single page when there are already templates available that serve the same purpose. Editors are of course free to discuss changing the template from {{legal policy}} to {{policy}} again on the talk page. As far as arguments ad Jimbonem go, they have no place in this discussion, since a.) he did not object the change from {{policy}} to this template in the first place (as Ned Scott points out) and b.) replacing the current template with {{legal policy}} does not go against his wishes of removing the policy-tag anyway. And, if someone asks him and he decides that {{legal policy}} is the wrong tag, he can still invoke WP:CONEXCEPT as Swarm pointed out and change it back. Regards So Why 10:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Official policy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Solely transcluded onto Wikipedia:Child protection, this rather misrepresents itself (Wikipedia:Child protection is not indelible, nor is it the only "official" policy of the project). If firmer language than that in {{policy}} is needed there should be an option to add it, rather than a fork used on only one page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is certainly not {{policy}} (which has entirely the wrong wording for a page like WP:Child protection). There's {{legal policy}}, I suppose, but as long as this template produces the wording we want for one page, and potentially other similar ones in the future, I don't see any gain in deleting it.--Kotniski (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting this one and using the "legal policy" one. Gigs (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, good call folks. Happy for this to be replaced with {{legal policy}}. Kotniski: the advantage gained in having as few different policy header templates as we can is that readers don't have to juggle so many different severity levels in their heads, and any improvements made to the wording of the most widely-used ones get seen everywhere rather than having to make them on multiple overlapping templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with Template:Legal policy, which draws the required distinction in a clearer, less misleading manner. —David Levy 22:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll go along with delete and the "legal policy" solution, unless anyone from the Child Protection page objects (I left a note there).--Kotniski (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template is unique because it serves a unique purpose for a unique policy. WP:Child protection was marked as policy by Jimbo himself in an rare invocation of WP:CONEXCEPT (i.e. it was adopted in an official manner, not by consensus). Since the regular policy tag asserts a "widely accepted standard" and says "changes should reflect consensus" (neither of which statement applies), it was changed to a template with simplified wording. In any case, since this was not marked as "legal policy" by Jimbo, we should not label it as such. If we so strongly feel the need to change it at all, it should be to the original, "standard" policy template that the policy was adopted with. Again, though, this template seems more accurate in this unique context. Regards, Swarm ^{u / t} 22:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. How is {{legal policy}} inaccurate? Do you assert that this isn't a policy with legal considerations? Do you believe that Jimbo was familiar with that template and pointedly avoided using it for some reason? —David Levy 09:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er...yes, I would venture to say that Jimbo's familiar with the {{legal policy}} template, and if he wanted to mark this as a legal policy, he would have. Swarm 17:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would venture that Jimbo, as someone with rather bigger things on his mind, is probably not familiar with the various policy templates. Anyway, it's not only he who decides such things. (I've never really understood why this is an English Wikipedia issue anyway - why does the Foundation not adopt a site-wide policy?)Kotniski (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute or replace and then delete per all. --N Y Kevin @140, i.e. 02:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really considered to be ahelpful argument. Swarm ^{u / t} 13:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did read the above arguments, and felt I had nothing more to add to the discussion. My !vote is not a reiteration of previous !votes, so why did you link to that anyway? --N Y Kevin @201, i.e. 03:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
replace with {{legal policy}} and then delete. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and DO NOT replace with {{legal policy}}, as this is not a legal policy issue. The template isn't needed, and this page has no god like status just because Jimbo decided to pull some bullshit out of his ass. The page shouldn't have any policy tag, but since anyone who dares oppose it gets banned or harassed or accused of being a pedophile, then I guess we have no choice but to leave it as it originally was, with the plain policy tag. It's a page that never had community consensus, based on a "policy" created by arbcom (former arbcom members, actually) in private on their mailing list. Jimbo's very instructions seem to forbid having changed this form {{policy}} to {{Official policy}}. -- Ned Scott 23:17, 1 October 2011 (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:WP Future

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP Future (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In the one transclusion which doesn't appear to be humorous in intent, this is mostly redundant to {{brainstorming}}. Blue-sky stuff which might theoretically be tagged by this template doesn't really belong outside of userspace, whereas in userspace it is very unlikely that a casual reader will mistake it for some current process. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not used anywhere; its transclusion may have been removed since the nom. Redundant.

Preceding comment is neither signed nor accurate. There is always the risk that vandals will remove templates in order to make them easier to delete, but that hasn't happened in this case. May I suggest checking links before saying there aren't any. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this for subjects that may become relevant in the future, but where consideration is unlikely to resume until the requisite event or technical breakthrough. That is a very different group to those currently being brainstormed. Sadly its probably necessary to keep such discussions in userspace where they should be safe from deletionists, which is why a template is useful. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can definitely think of instances where this would be completely useful. Swarm ^{u / t} 22:30, 18 September 2011 (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:Newtemp

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) 00:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newtemp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The use case here (that a new navbox is taken to TfD because it is unused when the problem is merely that it hasn't been deployed yet) seems unlikely to occur, what with adding navboxes not being particularly time-consuming and this being a fairly easy spot should TfD actually happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is a very useful template to place temporarily on other templates. When a navbox is created, placing the navbox in every article contained within it can be a time-consuming process, and may take more than one Wikipedia session, especially for those with personal time constraints. It is a tedious task and not easy to get others on board with something like this. Some computers and connections are slow, making the addition of the navbox to a single article take a minute or longer. Now try to imagine dittoing that for 50 articles. At least if others know the job is not done, it'll help get it done sooner. Sebwite (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete. if the navigation box needs a long time to be developed, use userspace. A TfD debate lasts over a week, which is plenty of time to sort out any deployment issues. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A template is not like an article or even the template itself that you can develop in userspace. This is not about the development of the template's text, but about placing the template in other articles. Its purpose is to let others know the job needs to be done. Sebwite (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete If the template takes a very long time to add to all the articles, then the template is too broad. Instead of tagging it, simplify it, or find some other solution - Nabla (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:TFD says "Reasons to delete a template"

The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
The template is redundant to a better-designed template
The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility

This template fits none of these problems. Sebwite (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the next line: "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here". - Nabla (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2011 (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:Policycontroversy

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) 00:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Policycontroversy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Given the general maturity of policy at this point, there doesn't seem to be the need to tag sections with badges of shame. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template has not been in use for years. COGDEN 18:15, 14 September 2011 (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:Former guideline

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 merge with {{historical}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Former guideline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions. {{historical}} covers this well enough by itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S'pose - though this template adds some extra information that may be of interest to Wikipedia "historians" (though that extra information could be added outside the template, so if there's some kind of crisis of too many templates, then I could agree to deleting this one).--Kotniski (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replace with {{historical}} and add text to the "comment" parameter to indicate that it is a former guideline. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
neutral I do not like excess of templates, but there is some merit in this one, as a former guideline is not only 'yet another old WP page'. My sugestions are, if deleted then replace by {{Historical|comment=This page is a former [[Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines|Wikipedia guideline]], which is no longer backed by community consensus, but is retained for historical interest.}}; if not deleted then maybe coding it just as above may be good for increased style consistency across 'WP-history' templates. - Nabla (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to {{historical}} The best course is imho to expand {{historical}} to what Nabla and Frietjes suggest (e.g. so that {{historical}} will display such text). I'll see if I can create this. Regards So Why 18:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I whipped up a short example at User:SoWhy/sandbox. See this example. Regards So Why 18:19, 5 October 2011 (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:Infobox International Centre for Migration Policy Development

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) 00:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox International Centre for Migration Policy Development (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete because this is neither a template nor an infobox. Creator was attempting to publicize his organization and was blocked. JFHJr (㊟) 15:07, 14 September 2011 (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:Userblank

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) 00:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Userblank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in sync with the current consensus on userspace policy or warning formatting, and unlikely to be usefully reworked so that it is. So far as I can see this has never actually been deployed (a text search on user talk space doesn't turn up any substituted uses). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete misrepresents protocolCurb Chain (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2011 (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:Intentionally blank-section

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 speedy delete under G7. — ξ ^xplicit 01:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intentionally blank-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unlike {{intentionally blank}}, which at least has historical uses, this is unused and unlikely to be used in future. Trivial text substitution which is almost as much typing as the text it adds. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even sure why I created this in the first place. NW (Talk) 15:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete sole author requests deletionCurb Chain (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2011 (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:Idea

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 Speedy delete G7. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Idea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions: the difference in semantics between this and {{brainstorming}} is insufficient to warrant a split. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the template's creator - yes, please delete it.--Kotniski (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2011 (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:Humorantipolicy2

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) 00:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Humorantipolicy2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of {{humorantipolicy}} with very minor style changes and exactly two transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Alex^{discussion ★} 10:57, 18 September 2011 (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:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim seasons

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) 22:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to {{Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim}}, which contains all the articles contained in this template. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say KEEP, because every season is not included in the main Angels info box and it just makes it a bit easier to get from one season to another with this info box. --CASportsFan (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the "Seasons (5)" section of {{Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim}} (which has to be uncollapsed separately from the main template) does, in fact, contain a link to every season from 1961 to 2011 (which is what {{Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim seasons}} includes). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the seasons are in the collapsed portion of the template, which I should have mentioned. Because of this, the template I brought here for discussion is redundant. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete. I didn't realize that that had been added to the main template . . . it wasn't that way when I initially created this one. --CASportsFan (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, we already have season navigation three times, once in the infobox using prev/next season, once at the footer using a "succession box", and once in the collapsible section of the main template. So, four times is too many. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2011 (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:Mothballed

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mothballed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on only one page (and its associated talk page). The distinction between this and {{historical}} isn't sufficient to warrant separate templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: actually, the distinction is fairly pointed {{historical}} refers to pages that are effectively dead but retained for one reason or another; this template is for pages that are active but not currently being developed. It's a useful intermediary template for things that are expected to be revived eventually. --Ludwigs2 01:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've only ever seen this used on one page. It seems overly specific and pedantic to use this instead of {{historical}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as overly specific. The historical template works just fine here, which has a "comment" parameter for additional information (like that it is mothballed). Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recently created and seems to have a lot of potential use. The historical tag specifically indicates a page is being kept because it has importance, while this is used for pages that do not have any historical significance. -- Ned Scott 22:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2011 (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:Outreachwiki

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 reformat to a standard EL template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Outreachwiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A single transclusion, links to a minor WMF-hosted wiki. Not all sisterlinks are created equal, and we needn't have templates to direct readers to every single possible WMF-hosted outlet on an article subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the deletion rationale is neither based on a consensus or policy. "Not all sister links are created equal" reads very close to "I don't like it". Fæ (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm ambivalent about the Outreach wiki, having never heard of it until linked to it by this template's one transclusion. The point is that low-traffic external wikis should not be exempt from our linking guidelines just because they're run by the WMF, and they especially should not be special-cased by using the sisterlinks markup to highlight them. A simple external link can be used in the few cases (or "case", singular, as it may be) that this resource requires linking. Incidentally, "not based on consensus" is a non-argument in itself as well, if we're talking about weak rationales. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What an odd thing to say. If deletions are raised without any pretext of policy or consensus then you are free to raise as many "I don't like it" nominations as you fancy. I note that this page discussing nominations is supposed to create a consensus for these decisions too... With regard to your point about our linking guidelines, which part of which guideline does this template appear to fail (it would have been handy to reference this in your nomination)? Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The relevant guideline here is WP:EL. The site in question is a low-traffic wiki. By convention we give (some) WMF extlinks prominence through the use of templates like {{sisterlinks}}, but there's nothing to suggest that we must do this in all cases, and I don't believe that a low-traffic project like the outreach wiki (which doesn't even have its own article here) warrants this sort of special casing. I had intended to imply this in my nomination, so I'm sorry it required clarification. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - As far as I can see there is nothing in EL that would make the outreach wiki an EL failure, could you point out which bit you mean or perhaps there is a more specific template related policy that applies for a low-count-of-usage situation? Fæ (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        ELNO 12. It is an open wiki which does not demonstrably have a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        As someone familiar with the site (I confess I'm a sysop there) I feel your interpretation is based on assumptions rather than facts, particularly as you have already admitted to never hearing of it before. The site is used as the definitive source for very stable outreach documents used by WMF and others, as well as by institutions such as the US National Archives and the British Library for evidence of GLAM case studies. If you feel this is a ELNO#12 failure then I suggest you raise for discussion on RS/N rather than here. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook WP:ELNO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, we don't need a floating box for this, just put a regular EL in the EL section. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesn't violate ELNO 12. 1,889 registered users, 96 active users in the past 30 days, and 707 content pages since it was created this year [1], AND it's an official Wikimedia sister site. We have EL's to far lesser 3rd party wikis with much less activity, that have their own EL template and would easily survive any TfD. I believe that demonstrates the community's consensus definition of "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", and Outreach exceeds that. -- Ned Scott 22:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change to regular external link like {{Halopedia}} (i.e. remove floating box) and check all transclusions to make sure they aren't borked. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2011 (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:Last.fm

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) 00:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Last.fm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Only add this template to an article, if the relevant last.fm page provides useful supplementary information, that isn't already included in the article or the other external links." What possible information could last.fm have that Wikipedia doesn't? Most last.fm bios are just copies of Wikipedia anyway. And in general, Last.fm is an unacceptable third party link since it's a social site. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

737 transclusions. I would agree that there's no unique content on typical last.fm pages save for commercial links and the radio stream (which may be licensed, but isn't "official" so to speak). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless links. By deleting the template, people don't think we encourage Last.fm links (which is probably what some folks did). --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2011 (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.