Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 25 March 27 >

March 26

[edit]

Template:Alcohol (drug)

[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alcohol (drug) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This template is being used in a non-standard manner to hang a long list of alchohol and health related topics in the Health sections of various articles, some of which are shorter than the template itself. Not only is this a style issue, it gives the impression that Wikipedia has an opinion on alcohol consumption and health by presenting far too many topics than needed, and in a way that only occurs for this topic. It is not necessary to list all imaginable health and alchohol topics in this way, standard methods are available and are more than adequate, such as using a {See also} hatnote at the top of the section, to link to an over-view health and alchohol article (which oddly doesn't seem to exist), or to Alcoholic beverage#Effects of alcohol on health. MickMacNee (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's an appropriate navlink, grouping together related articles. Though I would say that as a navlink it would be better off in wide format at the bottom of the page, than in narrow at the top. I feel that reformating the template might address MickMacNee's main concerns. SilkTork *YES! 00:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the adjustments to the template and the articles on which the template is placed, so that it is no longer intrusive, but is still able to serve as a useful navigation aid, and in a location that people are accustomed to looking for such navigation templates. SilkTork *YES! 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is better, less intrusive and closer to the standard style. I would withdraw the nomination on the proviso it remains in this form. MickMacNee (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per SilkTork. Templates such as this are actually used in other articles. Infact templates for articles which have more than say three closely related subjects help avoid long see also lists. The harms to health of alcohol are widely accepted. If you think article content is biased the response to that should be to edit them using reliable sources rather than trying to delete a useful navigational template.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SilkTork. The recent format changes are certainly an improvement that maintains the usefulness of the nav template. AgneCheese/Wine 02:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per SilkTork. Seems like a perfectly reasonable navigational template to me, and I don't really see how the present template can be construed in the nominator's way. Tomas e (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See above, I made the nomination when the template was basically a huge vertical full font See Also list dumped in the middle of articles, in a 'you must read this' fashion. The new format is a million miles better, and does not stomp all over the visual cortex of people who are just happily reading the prose of an article and stumble on a small Health paragraph, and had less than zero interest in these suggested articles, particularly when that paragraph comprises less than 2% of the size of the whole article. (if anyone's interested, the article I was reading was Cider. MickMacNee (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems useful. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a very useful 'dashboard' with which to navigate from one topic to another. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The template in discussion is very useful when navigating through the topics at hand.--Metalhead94 T C 16:55, 1 April 2010 (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:Season

[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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Weathernav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Weather (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Season and Template:Weathernav with Template:Weather.
{{Season}} seems to be an inferior and less-used version of {{Weather}}. {{Weathernav}} seems to be better but was apparently adapted from {{Weather}} without attribution, so I think {{Weathernav}} should be the template used but should be merged to {{Weather}} along with {{Season}}. anemoneprojectors talk 19:20, 26 March 2010 (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:Jump

[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) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

No transclusions, and I don't really think anyone will use this in the future either. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:59, 26 March 2010 (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:Error correction

[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) 15:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Error correction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template that is not being used on any of the articles that it links to. It looks outdated and abandoned. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2010 (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:Buzzify film

[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) 02:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buzzify film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No consensus for this template. It's a non-noteworthy site and is being placed on multiple film articles, which such can be seen as spam/COI. —Mike Allen 03:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-noteworthy site, adds nothing to any article, and seems more of a spam template than any legitimate use. Created by SPA whose only edits were to make this template, and shove Buzzify links on over a dozen articles. Before hits edits, no article had such links. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My intensions wasn't to spam the articles. I added RT and/or Metacritics links in most of my edits too. Thought templates was supposed to make it easier to add the links (or other content). However if it's decided that the Buzzify template/links should be deleted I'll respect that decision and only add RT and Metacritics links on pages missing these. My opinion is that the reviews list on Buzzify is quicker to go through than RT/MC, that's all. Bocker 05:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC+1)
  • Hi, Bocker. Thanks for explaining the reason you created the template, and I apologize if we seem to come on a bit strong. While Buzzify does seem simpler where the other two are packed with features, we have consensus for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic because they are well-known in public. We link to them so there can be access to multiple reviews at once since links to individual reviews are not allowed. It may help to read WP:EL about how to use external links on Wikipedia. We try to avoid what's called a "link farm" because we should strive for as few external links as possible while making sure we can supplement the article with more useful content. We also have MOS:FILM#External links and WP:RTMC available to read as well. Please let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Erik. Thanks for the links. I've read through most it now, and I understand the reasoning behind putting this up for deletion. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Bocker 14:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC+1)
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:Economy of Europe (template)

[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. Unused navbox with all redlinks. RL0919 (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Economy of Europe (template) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navigation template, which is used to navigate between mostly deprecated or deleted templates (i.e., hard-coded, single-use, infoboxes) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:37, 26 March 2010 (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/2010_March_26&oldid=1141876483"