Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 31 April 2 >

April 1

[edit]

Template:ESIScore

[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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted here. ~ RobTalk 00:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This ESI score is based on original research and does not belong in Wikipedia. If it were based on actually peer-reviewed work, we could include it, but it is solely based on self-published material. jps (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lol WHAT? ESI is original research? Why don't we delete Earth Similarity Index as well then? Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Show me any paper on an exoplanet discovery that quotes this index. jps (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ESI is Original Reasearch? Is this an April fools joke? QuentinQuade (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Discussion reopened due to vote fraud. Mike V • Talk 18:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ESI appears to have negligible use or acceptance beyond the individual or group that published it. Most, possibly all, articles using this template are about to be deleted. The creator of the template has been spamming and coat racking ESI across a multitude of articles, and using abusive sock multi-voting to keep & promote it. If we discard the abusive sockmaster vote above, this is currently unanimous for delete. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2016 (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).

Template:HabPlanetScore

[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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted here. ~ RobTalk 00:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This particular template is based on original research. No peer-reviewed "habitability scores" are published for planets by Kepler, NASA, etc. jps (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reason as TfD above. Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Btw Kepler is a misson by NASA their not seperate entities. An exoplanet is an exoplanet even if it was discovered by NASA other properties can be discovered by other space orginizations too. The reason why other orginizations such as universities publish ESI scores instead of the original publisher like the NASA/Kepler mission is because its not Kepler's job to calculate the ESI. Instead we can take the values of the planet which is Kepler's job (to find exoplanetary data) and plug that data into an equation to get the ESI. The ESI is in Universe Sandbox^2 and SpaceEngine and countless other astronomy software and was not invented on Wikipedia for funzies. I am going to assume that this is just an April fools joke because.... QuentinQuade (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ESI is an artificial construct and is not in WP:MAINSTREAM academic use. jps (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every article using this has majority delete votes on it (once the sock multivoting is discarded). It's being used to present speculative / fringe data in an Original Research manner. Wildly speculative "habitability" of exoplanets is being promoted in a grossly unencyclopedic manner. Alsee (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2016 (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).

Template:2016–17 SEC women's basketball standings

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ RobTalk 00:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The college basketball season this is for is the better part of a year away. WP:TOOSOON ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:14, 1 April 2016 (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).

Template:Gaddafi backed

[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted here. Izkala (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of these very different organizations or vaguely related topics into this controversial template is neither specified, qualified, or quantified, nor is it sourced or comprehensively covered.
Even if a proper article on this topic existed, I doubt this is an appropriate topic for a navbox. We could have myriads of similar templates claiming to collect groups supported by Putin, Erdoğan, the Saud family, U.S. government agencies, etc. p.p. But I'd rather keep navboxes limited to uncontroversially related articles only. I'm however not opposed to listifying these, if properly sourced. PanchoS (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the Gaddafi government in Libya was particularly notable for it's foreign policy of supporting and financing revolutionary political movements (the article for this is Foreign relations of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi) across the world associated with the Non-Aligned Movement and this was a key aspect to a number of conflicts. This is an uncontroversial fact. Yes, we could have other templates along similar lines, that could be very useful... I think templates on movements the US or Soviet Union supported as part of their foreign policy during the Cold War would be useful. Or even the Saudi royal family. Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The question here should be "Will readers want to navigate from one group supported by Gaddafi to all other groups supported by Gaddafi?" The answer to this is a clear no. While a properly sourced list may work in the mainspace, this doesn't make sense as a navbox. ~ RobTalk 00:40, 10 April 2016 (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).

Template:Humor

[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).

The result of the discussion was TPH fails to stop the pranksters. Gimubrc (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another easy way to stop all the april fool's pranks today. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:20, 1 April 2016 (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).

Template:Article for deletion

[edit]

Draft:Template:Humor icon April fools nomination

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).

The result of the discussion was April Fool's. Gimubrc (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest way to stop all the jokey april fool's day nominations. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:15, 1 April 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_1&oldid=1251441967"