Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 11

< July 10	July 12 >

July 11

Template:Distribution fitting software

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 to delete, but consensus to move the external links to the article. Feel free to renominate if you still want it deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Distribution fitting software (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consists mainly of external links, with just single internal link. Possible confusion of purpose with {{Statistical software}}, as all "statistical packages" do "distribution fitting". Seems just a link farm. Melcombe (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no fundamental reason for deletion while the deletion proposal seems to be based on personal taste. The template "Distribution fitting" was added to the article Distribution fitting and forms an organic entity with it. Like any other contribution to Wikipedia, it can further develop and mature. Possible confusion with the template {{Statistical software}} is remote as the latter is not, like the first, aimed at a particular statistical subject but rather at forms of ownership/availability of the software. (The latter template might conveniently be renamed "Statistical software ownership/availability" or something similar.) Any statistical package that includes distribution fitting can be added to the distribution fitting template. Some already are. Asitgoes (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was some policy against using navigational boxes as external link farms? 174.56.57.138 (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editing guideline Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates does not mention external links at all. In the mean time two more internal links were placed on the template (Matlab and Statsoft). Asitgoes (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the section you are looking for is in guideline Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Properties which states that "Navigation templates do not provide WP:External links to other websites". it would seem like the best option would be to move the external links to an "External links" section in Distribution fitting. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Asitgoes (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

move the external links to the external links section, per Wikipedia:External links, and remove any items without articles. navigation boxes are for navigating between existing articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be a logical solution. In fact, the article contained such a section (see here), but it was removed by Melcombe, the initiator of this discussion. It seems that Melcombe does not want links to distribution fitting software on the distribution fitting page, neither in the form of a section nor in the form of a template. Asitgoes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article previously contained a section in the body of the article headed "Software" consisting of external links, violating Wikipedia:External links. But even then such links must satisfy WP:ELNO and in particular "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising" are to be avoided. The way to go would be to provide proper citations for information regarding particular software, where these should obey WP:CITE, but can contain links to external sites. Melcombe (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation from Wikipedia:External links: Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link. Asitgoes (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melcombe apparently removed the "Software" section with external links on "Distribution fitting software" from the "Distribution fitting" article, suggesting that the links do not satisfy WP:ELNO and in particular he wishes to avoid "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising". Well, all the sites linked to provide extensive scientific info on distribution fitting, some give free software, other free trials or papers on the subject, one gives a free application for reviewing and editing an add-in for Microsoft Excel. There is no objectionable amount of advertising whatsoever. They could be of benefit to the reader. Given the fact that "links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited" (see Wikipedia:External links, where it is also advised to "choose webpages to link based on the benefit to Wikipedia readers"), it would seem that Melcombe needs to restore his deletion, in line with the opinion of user Frietjes. Or else leave the template alone. Asitgoes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the external links to the article in question and properly formatted them. Whether they are all appropriate or not is a matter for discussion on hat talk page. This plainly isn't the purpose of a navbox and Asitgoes shouldn't have created one simply to circumvent the removal of said links from the article body. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inherent assumption that Asitgoes created a template simply to circumvent the removal of links is biased. The template has usefulness of its own and is also used elsewhere. Asitgoes (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely why it was created isn't really relevant. The point is that its existing content is inappropriate, and has now been folded back into the article from whence it was taken: if the external links are stripped then it only navigates three articles and is thus unnecessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need and no necessity to strip the external links. They are not prohibited and can all be beneficial to the reader. Apart from that, how many articles are to be navigated at least to make it officially appropriate? Asitgoes (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no precise number, but see the essay WP:NENAN. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A second group was added to the template: Overview, with a new link that may be very useful for the reader who is looking for more information on distribution fitting. I am sorry for those who are critical about the presence of external links, and I have thoroughly reviewed Wikipedia internally again in an effort to detect other internal links that may be beneficial for the reader in this context. Unfortunately, so far, I was unable to find new suitable internal links in addition to those already present. However, I will continue to work on it. Asitgoes (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template re-edited, generalized and renamed to "Distribution fitting". Added two internal links, now there are five. Asitgoes (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three more internal links added. Now there are eight. Asitgoes (talk) 20:16, 17 July 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:WPTem & Template:WPCat

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) 02:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

unnecessary frontend to {{WikiProject ...}} templates, since templates like {{WikiProject Ballet}} automatically detect that they are on a template talk page, and set the class to template. no need to even say "class=template". Frietjes (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is also incompatible with WPBANNERMETA switches, as it cannot accept named parameters. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have added WPCat to the nomination. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:31, 12 July 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:Yi

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) 02:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

per Ymu and others, we generally don't want to create WP:EGG links. there are exceptions where no consensus has been reached, which is why we have specific templates, like {{baseball year}}. also, the name is bad since it is frequently confused with {{Yi icon}}. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 11 July 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:Scac

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) 02:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

why not just name this template "please block me" per Wikipedia:NOSHARE? Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per violation of WP:NOSHARE.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 03:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment someone should also block Year801 (talk · contribs), which transcludes this template -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:10, 12 July 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:SBRO

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) 02:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

appears to have been a one time use template. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 03:15, 12 July 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:SB bot

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) 02:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SB bot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

userfy? Frietjes (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per decision of ArbCom.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 03:22, 12 July 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:Row1

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) 02:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Row1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Row2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

better to just use wikimarkup directly. Frietjes (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused; no obvious reason why you would want to use it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:09, 13 July 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:Rigidulous

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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

userfy? Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like {{trout}} but smaller... tag with {{humour}} ? -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- {{humour}} is for essays, not for random baubles people stick in templatespace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:01, 16 July 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:Title case1

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) 02:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Title case1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Title case2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old, unused, uncategorized, and undocumented. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 11 July 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.