The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
fails WP:NENAN, due to less than 5 relevant links The Banner talk 23:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Now my point is there are many templates just like this one that have been on here for years, and nobody ever said a word about them. Now suddenly its doesnt meet the criteria, to be honest its things like this is why I don't bother much with Wikipedia these days, as its so inconsistent. Case point: Template:Superfast I class Template:Superfast III class Template:Superfast VII class Template:Peter Pan class Template:Belorussiya class Template:Peder Paars class Now that is just a mere few, but don't go deleting all them please, they have been here for a long time, and have set the standard for ship articles like this, and I am just following that standard. Mbruce ( talk) 04:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Pakistani cuisine with
Template:Cuisine of Pakistan.
per the
discussion for Turkish cuisine, I propose merging these templates, keeping the navbox version (same rationale as before).
Frietjes (
talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
So either you need
or you face these effects:
These are not hypothetical effects, but the really observed ones. Do you think a better visibility of sidebars, as compared to navbars, is worth it? A "historical argument" is a bad one, since with the time the things will get worse, as more and more national cuisine templates get created. Therefore I support the removal of sidebars for all cuisine articles and replacing them by the navbars. -- Off-shell ( talk) 23:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Indian cuisine with
Template:Cuisine of India.
per the
discussion for Turkish cuisine, I propose merging these templates, keeping the navbox version (same rationale as before).
Frietjes (
talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This template has the same problems as recently deleted NGOlinks (see discussion here) which was argued to be a violation of several parts of WP:EL, including WP:ELPOINTS which says that the external links section "should be kept to a minimum," and WP:ELMAYBE which says "Long lists of links are not acceptable." The WP:EL guideline says "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter." This template violates the instruction by ushering a group of links into the article without subjecting them one by one to increasingly strict assessment. Note that the same type of discussion is taking place about Template CongLinks and Template GovLinks. Binksternet ( talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2014 March 19. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
I have requested a " deletion review" of GovLinks to occur simultaneously with this ongoing discussion of CongLinks. Unless I hear otherwise in the next few days, I will restore the lost content of CongLinks so that editors can see the content under discussion. I don't think there can be a reasonable discussion of what should be kept and what should be deleted, without being able to see the actual template (and their sample links) in context. I will seek to do the same for GovLinks but that must be done via administrators since the page was deleted. To be unambiguous and fair, I will un-delete on CongLinks even those links which DID have consensus for deletion -- so that we can have a full discussion and a proper selection of which links to trim. JesseAlanGordon ( talk) 18:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Per the deletion of the ngolinks template, nominating this for deletion as well. The fields create an indiscriminate list of external links, many of which are clear-cut violations of WP:ELNO and others that really should be decided on a case-by-case basis as opposed to blanket template attachment. It makes external link cleanup difficult-to-impossible, and simply doesn't meet our guidelines or, in some cases, policies regarding links and sites. Previously nominated in 2008 with a no consensus close, we appear to be coming to a much different consensus about long external link templates today. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 16:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Indiscriminate collection of information, against MOS:TV and WP:NOTTVGUIDE Finealt ( talk) 14:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The Silver Ball is a pseudo-award given to the second-best player at the FIFA Club World Cup. The winners of this "award" receive no special recognition, and there is no need to link them via a navbox template. The same is true for the Bronze Ball, the navbox for which I am also including in this nomination. – Pee Jay 16:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus, but please renominate once the sale is complete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
On October 1, 2013, it was announced that the last Smith Media station will be sold. The one station, plus the subchannel page is the only two pages that's on the template. Should the transaction get consummated, Smith Media will be defunct, making the template useless. Csworldwide1 ( talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Merge. There is clearly unanimous consensus that we should not keep this as a separate template. As for the difference among merge/delete/redirect, Debresser has given cogent reasons for wishing to merge the templates, and nobody has offered any reason for rejecting or opposing that suggestion. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Obsolete template with
Template:Deprecated template.
First of all I think it is best to use {{
Deprecated template}}, which has better code and better wording. And the category structure of
Category:Deprecated templates is better developed, including also detection of unexpected transclusions with
Category:Pages using deprecated templates. The code can be copied, of course, so that is not the main argument. I think the term "obsolete" is a judgment, while "deprecated" is an observation. In addition, the word "deprecated" implies that a certain decision making process stands behind the application of the template, while "obsolete" does not imply that. But even all of this is subtleties. The main argument is simply that these two templates are alike in function, wording and content, and no need to have both. Note: if the community would agree with this proposal, I would like to carry out the merge myself, because 1. Obsolete template takes only one parameter, and the Template deprecated takes two (adding the name of the template itself as a first parameter), 2. I'd like to add the appropriate date parameters to the 24 transclusions of this template, based on the history of deprecation. By the way, for the really historical templates we have {{
Historical template}}.
Debresser (
talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
fails WP:NENAN, due to less than 5 relevant links The Banner talk 23:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Now my point is there are many templates just like this one that have been on here for years, and nobody ever said a word about them. Now suddenly its doesnt meet the criteria, to be honest its things like this is why I don't bother much with Wikipedia these days, as its so inconsistent. Case point: Template:Superfast I class Template:Superfast III class Template:Superfast VII class Template:Peter Pan class Template:Belorussiya class Template:Peder Paars class Now that is just a mere few, but don't go deleting all them please, they have been here for a long time, and have set the standard for ship articles like this, and I am just following that standard. Mbruce ( talk) 04:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Pakistani cuisine with
Template:Cuisine of Pakistan.
per the
discussion for Turkish cuisine, I propose merging these templates, keeping the navbox version (same rationale as before).
Frietjes (
talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
So either you need
or you face these effects:
These are not hypothetical effects, but the really observed ones. Do you think a better visibility of sidebars, as compared to navbars, is worth it? A "historical argument" is a bad one, since with the time the things will get worse, as more and more national cuisine templates get created. Therefore I support the removal of sidebars for all cuisine articles and replacing them by the navbars. -- Off-shell ( talk) 23:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Indian cuisine with
Template:Cuisine of India.
per the
discussion for Turkish cuisine, I propose merging these templates, keeping the navbox version (same rationale as before).
Frietjes (
talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This template has the same problems as recently deleted NGOlinks (see discussion here) which was argued to be a violation of several parts of WP:EL, including WP:ELPOINTS which says that the external links section "should be kept to a minimum," and WP:ELMAYBE which says "Long lists of links are not acceptable." The WP:EL guideline says "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter." This template violates the instruction by ushering a group of links into the article without subjecting them one by one to increasingly strict assessment. Note that the same type of discussion is taking place about Template CongLinks and Template GovLinks. Binksternet ( talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2014 March 19. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
I have requested a " deletion review" of GovLinks to occur simultaneously with this ongoing discussion of CongLinks. Unless I hear otherwise in the next few days, I will restore the lost content of CongLinks so that editors can see the content under discussion. I don't think there can be a reasonable discussion of what should be kept and what should be deleted, without being able to see the actual template (and their sample links) in context. I will seek to do the same for GovLinks but that must be done via administrators since the page was deleted. To be unambiguous and fair, I will un-delete on CongLinks even those links which DID have consensus for deletion -- so that we can have a full discussion and a proper selection of which links to trim. JesseAlanGordon ( talk) 18:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Per the deletion of the ngolinks template, nominating this for deletion as well. The fields create an indiscriminate list of external links, many of which are clear-cut violations of WP:ELNO and others that really should be decided on a case-by-case basis as opposed to blanket template attachment. It makes external link cleanup difficult-to-impossible, and simply doesn't meet our guidelines or, in some cases, policies regarding links and sites. Previously nominated in 2008 with a no consensus close, we appear to be coming to a much different consensus about long external link templates today. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 16:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Indiscriminate collection of information, against MOS:TV and WP:NOTTVGUIDE Finealt ( talk) 14:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The Silver Ball is a pseudo-award given to the second-best player at the FIFA Club World Cup. The winners of this "award" receive no special recognition, and there is no need to link them via a navbox template. The same is true for the Bronze Ball, the navbox for which I am also including in this nomination. – Pee Jay 16:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus, but please renominate once the sale is complete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
On October 1, 2013, it was announced that the last Smith Media station will be sold. The one station, plus the subchannel page is the only two pages that's on the template. Should the transaction get consummated, Smith Media will be defunct, making the template useless. Csworldwide1 ( talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Merge. There is clearly unanimous consensus that we should not keep this as a separate template. As for the difference among merge/delete/redirect, Debresser has given cogent reasons for wishing to merge the templates, and nobody has offered any reason for rejecting or opposing that suggestion. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Obsolete template with
Template:Deprecated template.
First of all I think it is best to use {{
Deprecated template}}, which has better code and better wording. And the category structure of
Category:Deprecated templates is better developed, including also detection of unexpected transclusions with
Category:Pages using deprecated templates. The code can be copied, of course, so that is not the main argument. I think the term "obsolete" is a judgment, while "deprecated" is an observation. In addition, the word "deprecated" implies that a certain decision making process stands behind the application of the template, while "obsolete" does not imply that. But even all of this is subtleties. The main argument is simply that these two templates are alike in function, wording and content, and no need to have both. Note: if the community would agree with this proposal, I would like to carry out the merge myself, because 1. Obsolete template takes only one parameter, and the Template deprecated takes two (adding the name of the template itself as a first parameter), 2. I'd like to add the appropriate date parameters to the 24 transclusions of this template, based on the history of deprecation. By the way, for the really historical templates we have {{
Historical template}}.
Debresser (
talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)