Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 25

[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) 09:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template simply provides an external link to a website: http://www.thepeerage.com/ That website is self-published by a hobbyist, Darryl Lundy, who is not a recognized expert in the field. The website does not qualify as a reliable source or a suitable external link. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#thepeerage.com, plus WP:ELNO and WP:SPS.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Why is that a template? How does it help the articles it's on to just have a link without anything else like that at the end of the references? And that's without the whole not even necessarily being a reliable source thing... -— Isarra (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was originally a fuller attribution template, before this edit. If indeed the site in question does provide a significant basis for the articles which link to it (and I wouldn't rule that out), I'd argue that we are compelled to continue the attribution. The most obvious first step would be undoing the diff in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good sleuthing. That complicates matters. I doubt that content was copied in all of the 600+ articles where the template is used. But figuring out which ones may be complicated. Also, the website is presumably copyrighted, so I'm not sure why we would have copied material from it to begin with. I think the next step may be to try to get the editors who've use the template to explain if they copied material or just added the link.   Will Beback  talk  07:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We don't need to attribute (though we may cite) information sourced elsewhere, only copyrightable text/ images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 28 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.
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) 18:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Danish Special Forces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no parent article, and redundant to Template:Military of Denmark. Frietjes (talk) 21:24, 25 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.
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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monarchs of Ireland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Snappy (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:56, 25 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.
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rescue cleanup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

For the reasons already given at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_13#Template:Rescue, primarily irrelevance and superseded by other practices. MBisanz talk 00:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The process by which articles survive an AfD should be heavily weighted towards the "improve the article first, then comment based on the improvements" as opposed to "turn up at the AfD with alleged improvements and hope somebody else makes them". That obviates the need for this template on top of the existing {{refimprove}} or {{notability}} tags. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a talkspace template (change the {{ambox}} to a {{tmbox}} and rewrite) Mainspace templates are supposed to have a limited shelf-life; the circumstances when this template should be removed are unclear. But I think the ARS does have the right to advertise itself on talk pages like many other WikiProjects. I know for a fact that WP:GOCE has a talkspace template analogous to this one. --NYKevin @054, i.e. 00:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its the world worst spam vehicle, since its never used, and has never been used. It was only created in September 2011, and the creator User talk:Nuujinn hasn't been seen for a month. Our super secret templates are the ones we use to shamelessly canvass and such.--Milowenthasspoken 17:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That it is not currently being used doesn't change my opinion that it has no use other than self-promotion. Resolute 19:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but its never been used ever, it has nothing to do with anything ARS actually does. And honestly, if ARS wanted to do anything like this, they could simply spam the talk pages of rescued articles with a similar comment. The idea in the nomination that this template has been "superseded by other practices" is laughable, there was nothing to supersede because it was never used. Tarc's vote is the only one approaching reality.--Milowenthasspoken 20:20, 30 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.