Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 8

< June 7	June 9 >

June 8

Template:Uw-dls

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) 20:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-dls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems like an awfully specific situation to create a templated message for, and this situation is well covered by the Template:Uw-spam1 series. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a reason why WP:DEADLINKSPAM was created. People started replacing dead links with spam links for WP:SEO purposes (i.e. to gain search engine traffic), meaning lots of spam links in the dead links' places. This link may also be of interest. --TL22 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the intent, but the nomination is proposing that Template:Uw-spam1 is sufficient. What is gained by a specific case spam warning, when any spam is bad?—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uw-spam1 covers normal inappropiate links that may often be put in good faith, while uw-dls covers clear spam links used in place of a dead link to gain page traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToonLucas22 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TL22, I'm not sure I see a distinction. If you feel Uw-spam1 is too "gentle", you can always start with Uw-spam2 which doesn't assume good faith. WP:UWUL allows starting with level-two templates (which make no faith judgement) or even level 3 templates (which assume bad faith) where appropriate in obvious cases. I've done my fair share of RC patrol, and I haven't seen any evidence that this specific behavior is widespread enough that it requires adding more bloat to our UW templates, and I don't see any reason to specifically mention dead links in the template itself, as the problem is with the spam link, not the dead link (if you feel you must you can use Uw-spam2's "additional text" field or leave a non-template message, which is actually preferred and will generally have better results). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If people seem to be following the advice of the Matt Woodward tutorial, use Uw-spam2, which specifically mentions how links from Wikipedia are marked so they don't improve search engine ranking. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appreciate the bold attempt to address the dead link spam issue, but I'm still not convinced that the existing generic spam warnings are not sufficient for this case.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam links are spam links and the more generic warning is sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the more generic warning is sufficient. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2015 (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:Kyrgyzstan Championship seasons

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) 20:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kyrgyzstan Championship seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently only one blue link and no substantial elements in the two years since creation. Could be a useful aid to navigation if articles were created but currently it is not. no problem with recreation if needed in the future. Fenix down (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2015 (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:TennisAt2015SEAsianGames

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. Procedural result. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TennisAt2015SEAsianGames (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A (tennis) template should not be created for a specific edition of a tennis tournament. Use one of the generic tennis tournament templates instead. Wolbo (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hi, Wolbo. This template can be deleted. I agree this template is deleted immediately. Thanks! Boyconga278 (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Template should NOT be deleted. There is no navigation box with the Team events for a Tennis Tournament. Keroks (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what is the replacement? Frietjes (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep and renominate for merging with {{Infobox tennis tournament event}}. Alakzi (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2015 (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:Pronoun

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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unintuitive to use, only 5 transclusions on pages other than itself and its subpages. Replace with {{they}}, {{them}}, {{their}} or {{theirs}}. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny - a few weeks ago, when I was looking into the other TfD, this template had lots of transclusions. I find it rather convenient that now it doesn't. Has someone intentionally orphaned it? Was there consensus for such an action? --N Y Kevin 14:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NYKevin: Someone apparently has, otherwise if it had this many transclusions last week I wouldn't have nominated it for merging. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be have been orphaned: If someone changes their (declared) gender this will keep up with their self-identification, a substed version may not. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: A substituted version will still reflect what the user has specified as their gender in their preferences, since {{pronoun}} is just the {{gender:username|m_out|f_out|u_out}} parser function with pre-filled values. Also, some of its transclusions may have been replaced with {{They}}, {{His or her}}, or other similar templates. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The former is the reason I stated "may". Deep subst would be {{subst:gender:username|m_out|f_out|u_out}} which would resolve to a value. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks useful, i'd been looking for something like this. I expect to use it routinely on talk pages going forward. DES ^(talk) 01:00, 17 June 2015 (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.