The result of the discussion was relisting here. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 16:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed a couple discussions related to the use of Template:Google Doodle, which is now added to pages linked from Google Doodles. However, this template and policy seem to have been implemented without a consensus, and I have seen several users (e.g. @ Gobonobo:) raise questions about whether such a template is needed. Indeed, I feel that there are several drawbacks - they add no encyclopedic value to an article, are highlighting the action of an external party (Google) with no relevance to Wikipedia, and clutter the top of the page. What's the distinction between putting an article on Google Doodle articles versus other high-profile articles (or even FATD) that are likely to draw a lot of new users? It's a slippery slope, and there's no encyclopedic value (unlike the templates for recent news events, or those warning of potential biases) for cluttering the top of the *article page* with another template.
I brought this issue to WP:VP but only got one suggestion to move it here to TfD, and wanted to bring this here for general broader discussion and see if we can reach a consensus one way or another. Rather than needing a consensus for deletion of this template, I think we can use this to gauge if there is a consensus for the addition of such a template to articles linked to from Google. If there's no consensus in favor of adding them, then I think the use of such a template should be deprecated (or at the very least shifted to the talk pages). Also pinging @ Stillnotelf: so s/he can chime in here too (we were in a discussion at Talk:Hertha Marks Ayrton; also see Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement/Google Doodle task force.) 2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9 ( talk) 22:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The Google Doodle template has been a part of Wikipedia. I really enjoy seeing it at the top of wiki articles and don't want it deleted. I think that others can really learn from links it provides them about editing rules and such. Ilikeguys21 ( talk) 02:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, redundant to {{ NYCS time 2}}. ~ Rob Talk 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, replaced by a wikitable in Valencia City, Bukidnon. ~ Rob Talk 22:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator, given Useddenim's research. Should not have been removed without consensus. ~ Rob Talk 09:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, redundant to File:Tram Paris T1 Plan.svg. ~ Rob Talk 22:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Not enough participation to achieve a consensus on deletion. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 22:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused. Originally created by a now-banned user. ~ Rob Talk 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Not enough participation to achieve a consensus on deletion. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 22:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, and unclear what article these would ever be used in. ~ Rob Talk 22:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. I realise the sandbox pages were added only yesterday to the nom but they've already been superseded by changes in the parent template's sandbox. Izkala ( talk) 08:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
we already have a template for this, it's called {{
infobox university}}. if you want to include the street address, you can use |location=
. there is no need to fork an infobox for one additional parameter/feature.
Frietjes (
talk) 12:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
the user in question seems to have failed to respond to any of the queriesis about as far from the truth as possible. I am the only one there carrying on a coherent conversation. Starting off a debate with an overt and insulting lie is not a good position. Trackinfo ( talk) 15:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
"There is clear consensus that the school's address is an appropriate piece of information to include in an infobox, but only in cases where the school/university is located at a single address. In cases where a university is not located at a single address, this information should generally not appear in the infobox. While many "yes" voters did not directly address the issue of spread-out campuses, their rationales frequently emphasized the importance of including objective and non-ambiguous facts in infoboxes. In the case of a spread-out campus, the address is no longer an objective fact. ~ RobTalk 04:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)That's a reasonable decision that can handled by mere mortal editors on a case by case basis. I again asked for the parameter to be activated and I still get blocked by people who are acting out their opinion that it does not belong, even to the point of misrepresenting the consensus that was declared on the RfC. And now the final message before I created this was more reasonable; that the template needed to be tested. That is what this template is trying to do. So, I am more than willing to have someone with the proper technical knowledge assist in making the address parameter work in the same fashion that it already works in infobox school. When this test template functions, it can be renamed and replace the existing infobox university. Trackinfo ( talk) 17:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, created 6 years ago. ~ Rob Talk 09:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, no useful navigation, and this team didn't win the tournament so precedent is that they wouldn't get a template. ~ Rob Talk 09:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete, unused. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, and redundant to templates like {{ Latin America and the Caribbean topic}}, which accepts an unnamed parameter to display articles, as seen in Crime in El Salvador. ~ Rob Talk 09:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
{{North America topic |name = Crime in North America |title = [[Crime]] in [[North America]] |prefix = Crime in }}
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. ~ Rob Talk 16:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Railways around Watford and Rickmansworth RDT}} ~ Rob Talk 09:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
Croxley Rail Link RDT}}
deals specifically with the Croxley line, whereas the other brings together all the different lines in the area including those which have no connection with the Croxley scheme. With railway line articles the usual practice is to have a RDT which deals principally with the route at hand.
Lamberhurst (
talk) 08:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Runner-up squad. Should be deleted per precedent. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_28#Template:Cork_Hurling_Team_1979. ~ Rob Talk 09:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted to May 27 (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 20:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
This template is basically duplicative now that Template:WikiProject National Football League now allows for a patriots parameter that goes to the same WikiProject link. This template only puts the articles into Category:WikiProject New England Patriots articles while the NFL template puts them into Category:New England Patriots articles by quality. Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. One editor offered redirection as a possibility, but there are no transclusions of this template, so it seems unlikely that redirect would be useful. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
This template had just one transclusion (at XHSFT-FM) and was not an aid to navigation. I rescued two similar templates by moving them for other cities in Mexico, but I don't have a target in mind for this one and it has already been removed from the articles in question with no incoming links whatsoever. Raymie ( t • c) 06:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Subsumed into Template:Mexico Radio Markets which now links to the same templates and is transcluded in its place. Raymie ( t • c) 06:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisting here. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 16:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed a couple discussions related to the use of Template:Google Doodle, which is now added to pages linked from Google Doodles. However, this template and policy seem to have been implemented without a consensus, and I have seen several users (e.g. @ Gobonobo:) raise questions about whether such a template is needed. Indeed, I feel that there are several drawbacks - they add no encyclopedic value to an article, are highlighting the action of an external party (Google) with no relevance to Wikipedia, and clutter the top of the page. What's the distinction between putting an article on Google Doodle articles versus other high-profile articles (or even FATD) that are likely to draw a lot of new users? It's a slippery slope, and there's no encyclopedic value (unlike the templates for recent news events, or those warning of potential biases) for cluttering the top of the *article page* with another template.
I brought this issue to WP:VP but only got one suggestion to move it here to TfD, and wanted to bring this here for general broader discussion and see if we can reach a consensus one way or another. Rather than needing a consensus for deletion of this template, I think we can use this to gauge if there is a consensus for the addition of such a template to articles linked to from Google. If there's no consensus in favor of adding them, then I think the use of such a template should be deprecated (or at the very least shifted to the talk pages). Also pinging @ Stillnotelf: so s/he can chime in here too (we were in a discussion at Talk:Hertha Marks Ayrton; also see Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement/Google Doodle task force.) 2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9 ( talk) 22:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The Google Doodle template has been a part of Wikipedia. I really enjoy seeing it at the top of wiki articles and don't want it deleted. I think that others can really learn from links it provides them about editing rules and such. Ilikeguys21 ( talk) 02:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, redundant to {{ NYCS time 2}}. ~ Rob Talk 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, replaced by a wikitable in Valencia City, Bukidnon. ~ Rob Talk 22:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator, given Useddenim's research. Should not have been removed without consensus. ~ Rob Talk 09:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, redundant to File:Tram Paris T1 Plan.svg. ~ Rob Talk 22:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Not enough participation to achieve a consensus on deletion. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 22:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused. Originally created by a now-banned user. ~ Rob Talk 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Not enough participation to achieve a consensus on deletion. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 22:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, and unclear what article these would ever be used in. ~ Rob Talk 22:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. I realise the sandbox pages were added only yesterday to the nom but they've already been superseded by changes in the parent template's sandbox. Izkala ( talk) 08:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
we already have a template for this, it's called {{
infobox university}}. if you want to include the street address, you can use |location=
. there is no need to fork an infobox for one additional parameter/feature.
Frietjes (
talk) 12:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
the user in question seems to have failed to respond to any of the queriesis about as far from the truth as possible. I am the only one there carrying on a coherent conversation. Starting off a debate with an overt and insulting lie is not a good position. Trackinfo ( talk) 15:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
"There is clear consensus that the school's address is an appropriate piece of information to include in an infobox, but only in cases where the school/university is located at a single address. In cases where a university is not located at a single address, this information should generally not appear in the infobox. While many "yes" voters did not directly address the issue of spread-out campuses, their rationales frequently emphasized the importance of including objective and non-ambiguous facts in infoboxes. In the case of a spread-out campus, the address is no longer an objective fact. ~ RobTalk 04:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)That's a reasonable decision that can handled by mere mortal editors on a case by case basis. I again asked for the parameter to be activated and I still get blocked by people who are acting out their opinion that it does not belong, even to the point of misrepresenting the consensus that was declared on the RfC. And now the final message before I created this was more reasonable; that the template needed to be tested. That is what this template is trying to do. So, I am more than willing to have someone with the proper technical knowledge assist in making the address parameter work in the same fashion that it already works in infobox school. When this test template functions, it can be renamed and replace the existing infobox university. Trackinfo ( talk) 17:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, created 6 years ago. ~ Rob Talk 09:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, no useful navigation, and this team didn't win the tournament so precedent is that they wouldn't get a template. ~ Rob Talk 09:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete, unused. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused, and redundant to templates like {{ Latin America and the Caribbean topic}}, which accepts an unnamed parameter to display articles, as seen in Crime in El Salvador. ~ Rob Talk 09:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
{{North America topic |name = Crime in North America |title = [[Crime]] in [[North America]] |prefix = Crime in }}
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. ~ Rob Talk 16:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Redundant to {{ Railways around Watford and Rickmansworth RDT}} ~ Rob Talk 09:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
Croxley Rail Link RDT}}
deals specifically with the Croxley line, whereas the other brings together all the different lines in the area including those which have no connection with the Croxley scheme. With railway line articles the usual practice is to have a RDT which deals principally with the route at hand.
Lamberhurst (
talk) 08:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Runner-up squad. Should be deleted per precedent. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_28#Template:Cork_Hurling_Team_1979. ~ Rob Talk 09:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted to May 27 (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 20:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
This template is basically duplicative now that Template:WikiProject National Football League now allows for a patriots parameter that goes to the same WikiProject link. This template only puts the articles into Category:WikiProject New England Patriots articles while the NFL template puts them into Category:New England Patriots articles by quality. Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. One editor offered redirection as a possibility, but there are no transclusions of this template, so it seems unlikely that redirect would be useful. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
This template had just one transclusion (at XHSFT-FM) and was not an aid to navigation. I rescued two similar templates by moving them for other cities in Mexico, but I don't have a target in mind for this one and it has already been removed from the articles in question with no incoming links whatsoever. Raymie ( t • c) 06:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Subsumed into Template:Mexico Radio Markets which now links to the same templates and is transcluded in its place. Raymie ( t • c) 06:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)