Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 4 January 6 >

January 5[edit]

Template:Infobox scientific field[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox scientific field (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This adds two external links, one to a site with just the name of the Dewey classification, the other to a very out of date, incomplete wiki that just contains lists of names. Both links fail WP:ELNO #13, so this template should not be used and to avoid this should be removed. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although the template is rather new and was added here by the creator, he didn't edited since then, and I don't think it would violate the ELNO policy - I see no reason why this template should be kept since it seems promotional and the msc2010 page has no edits in the last 30 days, do disclaimer, nor an 'about us' page. So useless. mabdul 12:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It serves much of the same purpose of most fields in Template:Infobox disease concerning classifications of the subject (e.g. ICD-10). This template is ment to hold classifications for scientific fields like the Mathematics Subject Classification. In fact it doesn't matter if the infobox at Radon–Nikodym theorem does link to msc2010 wiki or AMS database as long as it holds the classification code 46B22. --geraki TL 15:21, 10 January 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:2010–11 ABL finals bracket[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010–11 ABL finals bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Oprhaned template, special tournament version of {{PagePlayoffBracket}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:48, 5 January 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:Campaignbox Mexican War of Independence: Phase of Resistance[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Mexican War of Independence: Phase of Resistance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:06, 5 January 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:Campaignbox Bouvines War[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Bouvines War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:06, 5 January 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:Campaignbox Blockade of Veracruz[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Blockade of Veracruz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with 2 links Bulwersator (talk) 08:06, 5 January 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:Campaignbox Apocryphal Roman Wars[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Apocryphal Roman Wars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an interesting template. I am going to go and use it shortly. Varlaam (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done It is now in use.
  • Keep per Varlaam. mabdul 12:38, 9 January 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:Campaignbox Almohad Empire battles[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Almohad Empire battles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:05, 5 January 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:Campaignbox 2011 Libyan protests[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox 2011 Libyan protests (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused malformed redirect (or maybe something else) Bulwersator (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to original form, some person who didn't know how to use redirects broke the redirect. The first version of this page was a correctly formatted redirect. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anyway - fixing the redir would still make it useless, since nothing transcludes the template at this old name. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:44, 6 January 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:Caballero operas[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Caballero operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with 2 links Bulwersator (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. SENATOR2029 talk 13:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have one of his zarzuelas, but haven't had a chance to start a page. That entire category of opera composer templates is otherwise, unless I am gravely mistaken, entirely lacking in zarzuela composers. Operetta, yes; zarzuela, no. That template is partly there to act as an electric prod for the other musicologists lurking around who have been neglecting the zarzuela form. Varlaam (talk) 21:25, 8 January 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:CSOC standings footer[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CSOC standings footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 08:02, 5 January 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:CSI season X episode list[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CSI season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CSI season 2 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CSI season 3 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CSI season 4 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CSI season 5 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CSI season 6 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CSI season 10 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Malformed, unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:01, 5 January 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:Orphan image[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 Since this TfD has been withdrawn, I'm going to non-admin close it as being kept. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orphan image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is absolutely useless - images tagged with this thing are not more likely to be useful than untagged and this template is useless in helping the search for potential use of the tagged file.

It may be useful to generate suggestion lists (like images4bio or my own Echo/Images/Mountains) but this thing is absolutely useless.

PS Why only local files are tagged with this template? Bulwersator (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I notified Fastily (Fbot operator) Bulwersator (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment how in hell are you going to tag files that aren't local? The only files you can tag are local files. Commons files would be tagged with a Commons template, es.Wiki files would be tagged with an es.wiki template. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't any free image just be directly transwikied to Commons, and be done with it? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the template is a part of a cleanup on en-wiki. It informs uploader (and other users) that the file is not used. That could make someone add the file to an article (if it is usable) or to start a ffd (if it is not usable). Users can also use the template to find images that is not orphan using http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php or other tools.
As far as I can tell much more files are moved to Commons or nominated for deletion now than a year ago. This template is surely not the only reason for that but I think that is it usefull for the users that is active in the "file cleanup project" --MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep absolutely helpful. images tagged with this template are often good candidates for deletion and (perhaps less frequently) moving to the commons. I monitor images tagged with this template and find it very useful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could be smaller - rather too many lines for my liking. But it populates the hidden category Category:Orphan images, which is a useful purpose.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Images hosted at en:wp should be in use; if they're not, they should be deleted, either under speedy criterion F8 because they've been moved to Commons, or for some other reason because they're not acceptable on Commons. It's definitely a benefit to be able to mark the deleted images. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is only moderately useful, but the category it adds is particularly useful, for all kinds of reasons (as alluded to by previous comments). — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn - I never thought about this as "maybe we should delete this image" Bulwersator (talk) 13:45, 6 January 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:Disney Lakes[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 No Consensus. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disney Lakes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an extensively redlinked template with only two translclusions. Additionally, it is factually inaccurate: Orange Lake isn't even in the same county as WDW. There was previous deletion discussion in March 2007 with the intention to use it for "article creation/improvement." However, not even one article has been added to the template as a blue link. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_8#Template:Disney_Lakes. Senator2029 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Forests of redlinks like this totally defeat the purpose of navboxes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 01:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per two comments of the last Tfd: Delete Of the 4 blue links, one is only a section of another article, one is not a disney lake and does not use the template and the 3rd and 4th ones are probably AFD candidates if anyone can be bothered - no obvious notability. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC) [...] Delete for doubt of notability and improvement. –Pomte 03:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC) - the situation did indeed improved! (count the articles! - should be transluded to all related articles) mabdul 12:47, 9 January 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:Women's sport country topic[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Women's sport country topic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A textbook example of what to not do with templates. You input a country name and it outputs a navbox that creates links for every single sport the template author could think of, to an almost always non-existent [[Women's [sport] in [country]]], a great number of which will never exist, because triple intersections like this are usually a bad idea, and few sports are relevant in every country (perhaps only association football), much less at a gender-forked article level. Almost everything in this template, for almost every country, will simply be pointless redlinks, and that defeats the purpose of a navbox. Side note, for anyone interested in the wider fallout: The template author then proceeded to populate all of this for Australia, resulting in a large number of would-be articles filled with loosely-connected trivia, "gee whiz, some women play sports!" citations from the 1930s, irrelevancies (e.g. Australian media coverage of women's sports in other countries) and "facts" that are not actually in the sources cited, though a few of the resulting articles are okay. Many need to be sent to WP:Articles for deletion. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 00:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So this template is able to produce a link to Women's chess in São Tomé e Príncipe or Women's surfing in Mongolia? Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It spits out a huge pile of redlinks for whatever country is given as input: {{Women's sport country topic|the United States}}
Even for a country as large and well-documented as the US, there's hardly anything that isn't a redlink (for good reasons that aren't important here). The template is also malformed in that its "v·d·e" links don't work. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a template that's this open to producing forests of perpetual redlinks, including the nonexistent Mongolian surfers or Nauruan rock climbers, is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this template used to create useless navboxes is rather useless Bulwersator (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "The template is also malformed in that its "v·d·e" links don't work." - the transcluded template above has working v and e links (d is a redlink). mabdul 12:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That minor problem was fixed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
d is naturally a red link because no talk page has been created yet. You can create one by clicking d. De728631 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. The now-moot side issue was that the "v" and "e" links didn't work. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:22, 12 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_5&oldid=1138696085"