Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 24 June 26 >

June 25

[edit]

Template:Rot Weiss Ahlen squad

[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. - JPG-GR (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rot Weiss Ahlen squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Club plays on level 5 in the German league pyramid nowadays and has only 1 notable player. The author User:ArtVandelay13 had already proposed it once for deletion. Kq-hit (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:03, 26 June 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:FC Moscow squad

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Moscow squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no current squad anymore as the club went defunct in 2010. Kq-hit (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:02, 26 June 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:Iraklis FC squad

[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 with no prejudice toward any future renaming. JPG-GR (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iraklis FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no current squad anymore as the club went defunct in May 2011. Kq-hit (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's been updated to current roster. The club is not defunct. Iraklis's articles and templates will be cleared up, rewritten and updated in the next few weeks. dimitris08 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:02, 26 June 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:COI

[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) 00:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taken in part, and paraphrasing from earlier discussions, this is a clean-up template associated with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. However, as the Conflict of interest guideline states, COI isn't in of itself a problem with an article, but a potential cause of problems. This template does almost nothing to identify specific problems with the article. Instead it installs a badge of shame that sits there, looking through the category there are some from 2007, and offers assumption of bad faith and a signal that anyone who touches it is also under suspicion. Articles tagged with one of these templates would be served better to be tagged with a specific template identifying problems with the article. ie, one of Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes or Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. As such these templates are unfortunately installed and left as a badge of shame and do little to inspire clean up articles, and are redundant to the suitable cleanup template. Insomesia (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment since there is already Template:COI-check, this perhaps should be turned into a yellow-maintenance-template instead of an orange-alert-template. (or this could redirect to {{COI-check}}) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ~ Either of the IP's ideas sound like good ones, and I must admit I thought the first myself. That said, I'm not sure COI-check won't also be nominated for tfd now, based on the nom's rationale. --Izno (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:COI-check should likely be sent instead to Template:POV. This keeps within not focussing on the author but on the sources and content. I also erred in omitting that in a case of a living person, we seem to insinuate that they are hopelessly writing about themselves when they may have nothing to do with the COI issue. The same is true for a company or product's reputation. Even if someone says they are a product or company representative do we know this for sure? In these cases we're insinuating that the company is dealing in a shady manner and we're putting that at the very top of the page about them on the encyclopedia for the world to see. A company certainly may be operating in a shady manner but I don't see that putting a badge of shame will help change the article. Insomesia (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the nominator rightly says, while conflict of interest is not a guarantee of problems, it is a potential cause of problems. Articles written by editors with a conflict of interest frequently contain biasses. Sometimes it is easy to see that it looks as though there are such biasses, but not necessarily so easy to correct them. If I write an article about my business, presumably i know all about it, and I am likely to be able without much difficulty to provide all the kind of information that I want to be seen there. If you, on the other hand, see the article, you may well get the impression that the article is not fully balanced, but you may not have the amount of knowledge of the subject that is required to provide that balance without extensive research. In that situation, you may not easily be able to address the problem by editing, but to be able at least to alert others to the possible problems may be useful.
The idea of replacing the conflict of interest template with a more specific template superficially seems attractive, but there are two important reasons why that does not necessarily cover the situation. Firstly, the conflict of interest template can be useful in cases where the conflict of interest produces sufficient grounds for doubting the balance of the article, but, for the kind of reasons I have mentioned, it may be difficult to locate and identify specific problems. (In fact, the more specifically a problem can be identified, the more likely it is that the problem can be easily corrected, so that the less likely it is that a template will be necessary.) Secondly, a conflict of interest may give reasons for being doubtful about several aspects of an article, and one template giving a general notification is less obtrusive than a whole string of templates listing a whole list of reasons why there might possibly be problems.
The nominator is mistaken in thinking that the template "offers assumption of bad faith". Very often an editor with a conflict of interest may in perfectly good faith write what they sincerely regard as an objective account, but because of their close involvemant with the subject they fail to see it from an objective perspective. Time and again I see editors protest, evidently in perfectly good faith, that their article has been wrongly deleted as promotional, when the article was such blatant marketing-speak that any outsider would see it as promotional. Of course, those blatant examples are not the ones where the conflict of interest template is useful, as the offending material can easily be dealt with, but they illustrate the point that conflict of interest can cause problems even where there is no bad faith at all. To jump from saying "an editor may have a conflict of interest" to reading that we are "insinuating that the company is dealing in a shady manner" is a big leap, and not necessarily justified. As for the suggestion that the template provides "a signal that anyone who touches it is also under suspicion", I find that bewildering. Why? How? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I'm seeing to often that these are added with an assumption of bad faith and are simply left there with no clear path for removal. How long does a badge of shame remain? Isn't 5 years for a clean-up tag too long? If an article has been gutted down to one sentence isn't that an indication that the COI has been addressed? To me it seems this tag is abused or poorly used. Does that really help? Certainly there are cases where COI is a real issue but if the no one can say what the real problem is then is there any? And maybe this should be saved for when there is a complex COI issue and not on a short article that is easily addressed with a more accurate tag. Insomesia (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JamesBWatson pretty well describes my thinking - while a conflict of interest doesn't necessarily mean that an article is flawed, it certainly increases the odds that there are problems with it. Insiders have an incentive (even if subliminal) to skew an article, and are uniquely in a position to provide (or withhold) information from an article that would conform it to their POV. Moreover - particularly when the bias is the product of omission - a biased article may appear to be just fine. Bias-by-omission would be particularly hard for third-party editors to detect, and even harder to flag using a specific template. I also disagree that the tag permits any kind of inference about the subject of the article. JohnInDC (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; we just did this in March (see discussion), no clear reason to revisit this now. Hairhorn (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clarify Reword template so it is clear when it can be removed from an article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have seen too ,much excessive application of COI, where people involved in a project often are the most informed. The potential for COI is itself not a problem is the article thoroughly cited, impartial, and the COI editor does not remove sourced negative content. Wxidea (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - This is a rather useful and important template if/when used properly, as User:JamesBWatson so precisely details above. And per User:Hairhorn who has pointed out that this dead horse was recently kicked about in March, so I hardly see a need to do it again so quickly.  -- WikHead (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - important, but yes blunt template. Groundhog nomination. Widefox (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I mostly dislike cleanup templates but this sort of template can provide a relevant warning to the reader about something he might not otherwise be aware of. It needs to be used with thoughtfulness, of course, and should be removed when a warning is not (or is no longer) appropriate. Thincat (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that information is about an editor, not the article. And there seems no plan to ever remove these. Insomesia (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incorrect. It's about slanted content (or potentially slanted content) introduced by a COI user.  -- WikHead (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This template is being misused and left in place to comment on possible problems, problems which would be better taken specifically as clean-up. Instead we are notified there might be an issue, may have been an issue, but what that issue is ins't specified. And if whatever issue was there is addressed there doesn't seem to be any consciousness to remove the template. So it lingers about a problem that only used to exist. Insomesia (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • In reply to these comments, which are helpful. I think it would be unsatisfactory to place the template without a rationale on the talk page. Also, it should be removed when there is consensus that the article is adequately NPOV (or that the template should not have been put there in the first place)—an editor with a strong potential conflict of interest may produce entirely satisfactory articles and edits. I don't doubt the template is (and will be) misused but I think it has a proper use. My main focus is on helping the reader—editors can look after themselves. Thincat (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • If there were a specific path to its use and removal I wouldn't have an issue. A template for more references is easily understood and managed. A warning sign with hypothetical problems is more in keeping with a badge of shame. I think there is a chasm between a real issue with COI editing and what this template actually does and doesn't do. Insomesia (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) Insomesia, deletion is not a very effective method of resolving issues of wording or misuse. Wrong approach, wrong venue.  -- WikHead (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think not having this template is preferable, if it can be fixed then great. I feel this is fundamentally flawed because it is applied like other templates but other clean-up templates are clear, actionable and easy to figure out when they can be removed. Insomesia (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I personally fail to see this template as something that's "broken", but fully support the efforts of anyone attempting to improve upon what already exists.  -- WikHead (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've suggested some initial language to address what I see are the main problems in the template's sandbox. Perhaps broken isn't as accurate as misapplied. In any case I think it misleads as to whether there remains an issue and if so what exactly that issue is, and why a more specific template wouldn't be more helpful. Insomesia (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and per Dondegroovily, clarify the point at which an editor can remove the template. As JamesBWatson and JohnInDC point out, COI problems with articles may not be immediately obvious, and require the scrutiny of COI editors who make good-faith contributions that may nevertheless skew an article. I see the use of this template as a placeholder for someone who recognizes a COI problem, but does not have the expertise in the topic area to be able to correct the questionable edits or confirm that they are okay. Shrigley (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per James Watson and others. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is an important template used on many pages and included in WP:Twinkle. Also worth noting that the template has been fully protected since 2007 due to its high visibility. I do think it would be worth looking at changing the wording, as I have received a few messages from confused newbies about what they have to do to fix an article. —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS 21:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In general I think that we have too many clean-up tags, and that they are used much too liberally, in lieu of actually improving articles, but the COI tag is one that I believe serves a very useful purpose. It is used (for the most part) only when a COI editor's contributions have actually exhibited problems, and it serves to warn readers and other editors of potential problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • However it doesn't specify at all what exactly those problems are. It vaguely asserts a problem is there with no evidence but someone calling shenanigans. The other clean-up templates are specific and actionable, this is vague and alarmist. Insomesia (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think that's the case, then the answer is not to delete it, it's to make it specific and actionable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is a way to do that it would be great. Unfortunately the logic is that this templates use should require a list of specific actionable items to address. Those are all likely to be references, tone, etc., each an already existing template. I think in this one area Wikipedia is not using enough common sense. If this template were only used when no other template was called for then we'd have no problem. Insomesia (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep One of the most useful tags in the box - It clearly warns readers that the article may be slanted, and reduces potential criticism of Wikipedia - especially when the COI author is trying to WP:OWN the article. If anything the tag needs to be made stronger, rather than diluted or deleted, as COI editors often remove the tag to hide their tracks. Increasingly I believe that some tags (principally Notability and this one) should only be removable by editors with certain additional rights, as the problem is often with WP:SPA editors, who have only joiuned to push their product, company or pet idea. Arjayay (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for reasons repeatedly elucidated; and I think I smell snow! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I stated above I wouldn't have started this thread had the last discussion been linked on the template page. Having stated that I challenge all those who favor the template to do their own survey and see if this template is actually being used for cleaning up articles. Specifically if they can tell what is wrong with an article because this template doesn't point anything out. And also note how long the tag sits on on article. Is five years perhaps too long? Insomesia (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JamesBWatson and others. As well, this template also often leads to investigations of bad usernames and copyvios. --Drm310 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above --DBigXray 06:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - do we have to discuss this every 3 months? We decided to keep this just over three months ago. It is better to have one tag that encompasses the whole series of problems related to the issue with the article, then having 4 or 5 possible tags for problems (articles written by editors with a conflict of interest can have problems with advertising, POV, tone, notability, linkfarming, etc. etc. - and generally more than one of it). COI issues need sometimes a deeper analysis than what is given to any of the separate templates. And {{advert}} or {{npov}} (or others) is certainly not less of a 'badge of shame' than {{COI}} - in either case editors will go through the edits on a page to see who turned the article into a blatant advertisement. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've stated twice already, I wouldn't have started this discussion if the last one had been linked on the template's talk page. I added the link there myself after someone pointed it out. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - This should definitely be kept. COI is a potential problem. But, I do agree it should be downgraded to a yellow tag. Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:00, 30 June 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:Ll

[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. - JPG-GR (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another attempt to complexify and confuse See also links, as per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 12#Template:Cto, and being used to replace that in advance of its likely deletion. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Please keep this template. I ask you to take a look at this template. This template is the third in a series begun long ago. Template:Ll is "tremendously complex": If Template:Ll is passed a target page that exists and is not the current page, then it displays a link to the target page. Otherwise, it doesn't. My eight-year-old grandson writes more complex code.
John Blackburne's deletion nominations have become blatant harassment. John can take "complexify and confuse" and stick it where it will do him some good. This is really getting old. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • observation Looking at the links it seems that the same name was once used for a completely different template which was also deleted, in 2005, after a couple of discussions. So there are quite a few links to this, including deletion discussions, that are not relevant to this particular instance of a template.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ~ What is unneeded are templates which make linking more complicated. Really, it's okay just to link like this. It really is. Harassment this is not, imo. --Izno (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You apparently did not look at this template. The issue is not about links (which are all displayed the same), but how non-link paths are displayed. Different applications have different needs. I feel like a kindergarten teacher. Nonetheless, thank you for your civil comment. Yours aye,  Buaidh  01:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The template isn't really appropriate. We don't need an ifexist to figure out if a link exists or not, we just need the difference between example and red link. It's actually quite puzzling why a person would use this template. Or any of the 3 'series begun long ago' templates, of which I see only one template has been around for more than 2 weeks... I stand by my comment. There's no need for this template, whatsoever. I have half a mind to delete the other two, because they seem to exist solely to hide the fact a link does or does not exist. :/ --Izno (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite simply, what I think the problem with the template is that it is presenting a consistent user experience to editors, potential editors, and readers. The series of templates presents a case which is certainly not in keeping with the rest of the wiki, and that is one of the reasons it should be deleted. --Izno (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template does not alter the user experience in any way. More than 99.99% of all internal links will remain unchanged. There are a few instances where this template is very useful. I'm asking that this template be retained for those instances. For example, in the See also section of the article United States, the following Wikitext:
*Topic overview:
**{{ll|United States}}
**{{ll|Outline of the United States}}
**{{ll|Index of United States-related articles}}
**{{ll|Bibliography of the United States}}
**{{ll|Book:United States}}
Replaces the manually maintained Wikitext:
*Topic overview:
<!-- **[[United States]] -->
**[[Outline of the United States]]
**[[Index of United States-related articles]]
<!-- **[[Bibliography of the United States]] -->
**[[Book:United States]]
That's all there is to it. Nothing insidious or confusing. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, for goodness' sake, why is it needed at all? Surely anyone editing the United States article would never add a "see also" link back to the article itself. They certainly wouldn't include a commented-out link. As far as non-existent articles go, having a hidden link like this is worse than a redlink in a "see also" section, since it doesn't even alert users to the fact that an article could be created at that title. There is a reason why we have redlinks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We eventually hope to get outline, index, bibliography, and book articles for all countries, major subregions, and other major topics. Currently, we have more to create than we have completed.
The Template:Ll example above can be reused for any major article about the United States without modification or further maintenance. That is the reason **{{ll|United States}} is included. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Barely used; as others have said, introduces unnecessary complexity. A nicely made solution, but to a problem that we really don't have. (I also note the puzzling existence of {{MG/1}}, which seems to be linked from the documentation of many templates including this one. What does it mean, I wonder?) — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This template is never used because I removed all invocations of it until this matter is resolved. You may be looking at an earlier incarnation of this template name deleted in 2006.
Template:MG was reviewed in this forum and approved not condemned. It provides a means for users with questions about templates to get the assistance of experienced editors familiar with those templates. Unfortunately, I'm the only editor to volunteer so far. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking at the discussion the outcome was 'No consensus', i.e. undecided not approved. I would ask why it has been added to e.g. {{Sort}}? Why not add your signature to the page to make it easier to contact you? Because that would be against policy. So why use a template to add yourself (a 'maintenance group' but only containing one user, you)? You've had nothing to do with the template that I can see, and editors can check the history or talk page for editors familiar with it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:MG has nothing to do with ownership or self-promotion. It is merely about those who are willing to help other users. Editors who use a template extensively may actually be more familiar with that template than the creators. John, you seem to find a conspiracy behind every shrub. Do you ever stick with the topic of discussion? Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say if I were to add my name to {{MG/1}}? — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be thrilled. I hope to recruit three to twelve volunteers per subpage.  Buaidh  14:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be adding myself for now. Interesting all the same.— This, that, and the other (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. when you create the "outline of" "index of" or other article, then go through and add the links to the "see also" section, if they are really wanted there in the first place. there is already some concern that these "see also" sections are becoming way too cluttered. in many cases, the target article will never be created, so this just leads to cruft. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree that most See also sections are cluttered with irrelevant miscellanea. Those of us in WikiProject Outlines and WikiProject Indexes are working hard to produce high quality high level overviews of important topics. Unfortunately, very few editors are willing to do the hard work of producing these outlines and indexes. This template is merely an attempt to reduce a tiny bit of the work we need to do. I hope you can appreciate that. We will target only articles that either exist or are slated to be constructed. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:29, 3 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:Infobox Scottish Clan

[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) 00:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Scottish Clan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Contain a broken/lost file File:Fraser Hunting.gif. Suggest to delete both the file and the template. MGA73 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 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:Rupenmiss

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used in a few talk pages. Contain a broken/lost file File:Rupenmiss.png. Suggest to delete both the file and the template and perhaps subst the usage. MGA73 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 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:Azerbaijan ties

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Azerbaijan ties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. This template does not serve as a navigation template between the different international organizations in which Azerbaijan is a member, as it would appear. It would put undue emphasis on Azerbaijan's membership on those organizations if it were to be turned into such a navigation template. The template is presently only used on one article, Azerbaijan, and its use cannot be expanded elsewhere in accordance with our policies. Also, it is of no use on the Azerbaijan article itself, because there are already links to the organizations in the body text. Shrigley (talk) 15:53, 25 June 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:ASIN

[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 for now, but we should see if there is a way to orphan these by replacing them links to Worldcat and/or OCLC and/or other services. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I am very uncomfortable with the fact that WP links directly to an item for sale at a very large commercial organisation, namely Amazon.com. There should be absolutely no need to link to a product that Amazon has up for sale. Unfortunately the template used quite a lot so if it is decided that it should be deleted we need to figure how to extricate it from the articles. Note that it was put up for deletion in 2007. This template is one of several that I have come across in recent months that has been created, used freely, but no guidelines placed on their usage. They then become contentious. This is a bit of a flaw in WP processes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment shouldn't this be covered under WP:EL ? It's an external link generating template. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if {{cite}} generates ASIN links, then there is no reason why this shouldn't exist also, when you're doing something other than a reference note. {{cite|asin=someasinhere}} , ASIN someasinhere {{citation}}: Check |asin= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per the comments at the previous TfD, especially those of Rich Farmbrough. @Alan: the flaw you are referring to is called: "The encyclopedia that everyone can edit." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change Template:ASIN/doc to add a prominent introduction along the lines of "The ASIN (Amazon Standard Identification Number) template links to a single commercial supplier. It is a reference of last resort, when no other online source of details is available". Certes (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and mention OCLC too (thanks, Alarics). If OCLC is available and comprehensive enough then think about replacing existing ASINs by OCLCs, but obviously that's a big job. Certes (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and encourage people to use OCLC number instead, where there is no ISBN. There is almost never a book that does not have an OCLC number. -- Alarics (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but discourage - and make sure the documentation reflects this. ASINs are something to be avoided (they're a proprietary, badly documented, and potentially unstable system, so not much use as identifiers), but replacing them and then deprecating the template is the way to go. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amazon.com is not a reliable source and there's no reason why we should link directly to it. Reliable sources for bibliographic citations always exist if we need them. Andrew Dalby 09:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ISBNs don't always exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but it's a sad fact that pre-1970(ish) there are no standard bibliographic identifiers for books at all. The ASIN looks like a standard identifier, but in practice it's a retroactively assigned catalogue ID number for Amazon's internal database. It is used by Amazon, and a few services which take their data from Amazon, but it's not used by any other providers outside this environment. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ASIN provides an alternative identifier for older books that do not have an ISBN number. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but OCLC equally serves that purpose. More or less every book ever published has an OCLC number as long as it is in a library somewhere. It is at least as reliable as ASIN in my experience, and it is based on collaboration between public and university libraries, rather than on a commercial enterprise, see http://www.worldcat.org/ . So there just is no need for ASIN. OCLC will do everything that ASIN can do but without the involvement of a commercial bookseller whose only motive is their own profits. -- Alarics (talk) 10:44, 5 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:Agriculture in Uttarakhand

[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) 00:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agriculture in Uttarakhand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a template in so far as it incorporates standard template formatting, but an attempt to create an article in the template namespace. May be eligible for speedy deletion as a test page, but I wanted to bring it here first. While the topic does not exactly scream notability, userfication or a move to WT:AFC may be preferable to deletion if the creator has any intention of expanding this draft. SuperMarioMan 02:35, 25 June 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_June_25&oldid=1136430538"