- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Unused, unclear purpose. Listed twice in 2011 with "No consensus" both times. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- It is a navigation aid. The purpose becomes clear if you look at e.g. this old version of B2. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- delete, since the last TfD this template has been orphaned, and I have not seen any objections since the orphaning back in 2011. Frietjes ( talk) 14:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. The template is unused (and is unusable per current
disambiguation page guidelines in that this template does not
aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question
-- it was meant to help navigate to different terms in arbitrary sequence). older ≠ wiser 15:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
No clear criteria for inclusion. The beatles were super popular, and about 75% of the recording world has crossed paths with them. For instance, what do Peter and Gordon have to do with the Beatles? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, Peter and Gordon had plenty to do with the Beatles(!) ... I agree, though, and I'd say it's bordering on trivia. (In the same way, we have articles on Beatles family members that really aren't worthy of an article: e.g. the only notable thing about Alfred Lennon, Jim and Mary McCartney and George Toogood Smith is that they had a familial relationship with an extremely famous musician.) As someone who works a lot on Wikipedia's Beatles articles, I don't think it would be any great loss to see the template gone. I was looking for other, similar examples, and there are only three: Template:People associated with The Beach Boys, Template:People associated with Public Interest Research Group and Template:People associated with Green Corps – so perhaps they all belong here at TfD. JG66 ( talk) 05:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose, The Beatles hold such an important place in world history, in the history of the era, and of music in general, that this template should stay. The associated and listed names are a large part of the history, and losing it would necessitate greatly expanding other Beatle templates. The template could be trimmed a bit (Ed Sullivan, Donovan, etc. and other semi-tangential links), but kept on board.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
00:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Randy Kryn: So it's "important" that [insert act here] rubbed shoulders with the beatles once? There's no clear criteria for what should be included. Obviously, something like George Martin or Wings would be included, but what do Peter and Gordon have to do with the Beatles? Or many of the other acts here? This clearly fails
WP:PERFNAV. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
04:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Peter Asher, one half of Peter and Gordon, is the brother of Jane Asher, who was Paul McCartney's girlfriend before Linda Eastman came on the scene. Less tangentially, Lennon and McCartney wrote several songs for Peter and Gordon between 1964 and 1966, such as " A World Without Love"; " Nobody I Know"; " I Don't Want to See You Again"; and " Woman". -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 08:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- One thing this discussion shows so far is that, even with the precise content being a peripheral subject, no one here's in agreement over who belongs in the template and who doesn't! (e.g. Donovan's way more "associated" than some of the names that appear; Wings aren't included.) Which goes some way to support the idea that the criteria for inclusion's unclear, or at least that it's highly subjective. In the past, the question of associated acts in the infobox at
the Beatles has led to some differences of opinion. There are some
guidelines on this at Template:Infobox musical artist, so perhaps something similar is needed in Template:People associated with The Beatles, if it is to be kept. Another thing:
Randy Kryn, I fail to see how losing this template would mean "greatly expanding other Beatle templates" – why, and which ones?
JG66 (
talk)
07:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- "Rubbed shoulders with the Beatles once" is an incorrect definition of this template, which of course should be trimmed and organized and have a better and higher inclusion bar. Maybe not 'greatly expanding' other templates, but the main Beatles template doesn't include Brian Epstein or George Martin, so would have to include a section of 'Associated people', and then again it runs into who should or should not be included. Keeping this one and working it into a better form would keep the Wikipedia-map quality of the template and Beatles history while providing information of interest to serious Beatle fans or researchers. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Randy Kryn: So it's "important" that [insert act here] rubbed shoulders with the beatles once? There's no clear criteria for what should be included. Obviously, something like George Martin or Wings would be included, but what do Peter and Gordon have to do with the Beatles? Or many of the other acts here? This clearly fails
WP:PERFNAV. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
04:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
delete fails WP:PERFNAV 68.151.25.115 ( talk) 23:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)- Keep – per the argument "the main Beatles template doesn't include Brian Epstein or George Martin, so would have to include a section of 'Associated people', and then again it runs into who should or should not be included" – if you don't believe Donovan is really associated with the Beatles then simply remove him from the template --
Ilovetopaint (
talk)
03:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
cite something policy-related. This is a clear case of avoiding over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of performer's articles 68.151.25.115 ( talk) 15:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)- If that policy applied in this context then we would also have to remove John, Paul, George, and Ringo's links.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 13:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 moving to userspace. It appears there is weak consensus to cut-and-paste this to create a vote table for the next major Senate vote, but for that it can live in any namespace. For now, I am moving it to User:Classicwiki/115th United States Senate Roll Call, but feel free to move it elsewhere (even back to where it was) if there is more clarity on how it should be used, and in which namespace it should live. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- It is a template off of which things can be customized.
Template:115th United States Senate Roll Call helped in building
Template:Trump confirmations and
Template:Trump confirmations2. You can see it being used in
Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination#Confirmation_vote. Although the template isn't invoked in the traditional sense, it is still used on Wikipedia. It saves editors the painstaking process in building their own version of the table when the time comes to display a
United States Senate vote on articles. Additionally, it keeps those tables somewhat uniform in style. As
115th United States Congress ends on January 3, 2019, there is still ample time for this template to serve its purpose. I hope that it will be kept, but understand otherwise. (Please ping when you respond)
Classicwiki (
talk)
16:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
-
Classicwiki, I would suggest either (a) moving it to project space if it's meant to be cut-and-paste, (b) turning it into a proper template where you can supply votes for each of the names and substitute it to get the resulting table.
Frietjes (
talk)
22:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Still feel very new to Wikipedia. What project space would you recommend? I can't picture what your saying in the second option. When you invoke a template, doesn't it come as is (barring any changes to size/state)? How would I go about doing your second option? Is there another template where I can see this in action? Classicwiki ( talk) 22:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
-
Classicwiki, I would suggest either (a) moving it to project space if it's meant to be cut-and-paste, (b) turning it into a proper template where you can supply votes for each of the names and substitute it to get the resulting table.
Frietjes (
talk)
22:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Frietjes: If you have an opportunity to get to my questions above, I appreciate it. I plan on using the template if the US Senate comes to a vote on the Better Care Reconciliation Act. Thanks, Classicwiki ( talk) (ping me) 04:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
-
Classicwiki, did you see
this change?
Frietjes (
talk)
12:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Frietjes:, thanks for that. I understand what you mean now. Two concerns: 1.) what happens if a senator changes? Wouldn't all past templates usages be affected, or would you just omit the departed senator in the change? 2.) The articles/templates that use the information from this template color code the vote results, is it possible to conditionally format this template? If this is all too much work, and proves your point as to why the template should be deleted, I totally understand. Best,
Classicwiki (
talk) (ping me)
20:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Classicwiki, the fact that the composition of the senate isn't static is why I said "substitute it" (as in WP:SUBST) to get the resulting table. what people usually do in situations like this is just copy the table from the last time it was used (e.g., from Neil_Gorsuch_Supreme_Court_nomination#Confirmation_vote) and modify it for the new vote. if you want to keep a copy of a blank table somewhere, you could use a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. Frietjes ( talk) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Frietjes:, thanks for that. I understand what you mean now. Two concerns: 1.) what happens if a senator changes? Wouldn't all past templates usages be affected, or would you just omit the departed senator in the change? 2.) The articles/templates that use the information from this template color code the vote results, is it possible to conditionally format this template? If this is all too much work, and proves your point as to why the template should be deleted, I totally understand. Best,
Classicwiki (
talk) (ping me)
20:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Lang-en-AU ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a utility template, one of a set for varieties of English. If any are available to use they all should be, rather than penalizing certain varieties. Consider the entire set:
- {{ Lang-en-AU}}
- {{ Lang-en-CA}}
- {{ Lang-en-GB}}
- {{ Lang-en-IE}}
- {{ Lang-en-NZ}}
- {{ Lang-en-US}}
- {{ Lang-en-ZA}}
- There are occasional uses of some of these. The previous discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13#Template:Lang-en-AU and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13#Template:Lang-en-US closed as no consensus. StarryGrandma ( talk) 16:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep (or Merge): These are underutilized, not useless, and as observed above they are a set. If some are already used, all should be retained. In this they are like flag, country, and other "set" templates. As briefly discussed at nom's talk page, I'm not opposed to merging these into their parent template, as parameters – if and only if the work is done to replace their extant uses with calls to that template with the correct parameters. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Lang-en-NZ ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused and doesn't actually do anything when transcluded, for some reason.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I've fixed the template so it now works. See comment above about the set of language templates. StarryGrandma ( talk) 16:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep (or maybe merge); see above multi-template discussion for details. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 keep , but feel free to merge it assuming there are no issues with doing so. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Language with name2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions except as demonstration in a MoS page.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
09:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete only if the two templates which use this, {{
Lang-en-US2}} and {{
Lang-en-GB2}} (currently proposed for deletion), are deleted.
StarryGrandma (
talk)
16:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: These (now redlinked) were not just deleted, but merged then deleted. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: appears to be used by Template:Lang-en-US and Template:Lang-en-GB
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: appears to be used by Template:Lang-en-US and Template:Lang-en-GB
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- keep or merge with template:Language with name. Frietjes ( talk) 13:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, or merge with
{{ Language with name}}. This serves a purpose (even if presently under-utilized); it just isn't essential that it be a separate template instead of a parameter-induced variant. As with the above related templates, just make sure extant calls to it are replaced with calls to{{Language with name}}with the needed parameter; see the merge I did of{{Lang-en-US2}}and{{Lang-en-GB2}}'s functionality to{{ Lang-en-US}}and{{ Lang-en-GB}}, respectively (though I don't know if the needed followup was done after deletion of the *2 variants – I'm just assuming so since TfD admins usually know what they're doing. ;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Is this a joke? If this ever happens, we can use the normal current template. KMF ( talk) 17:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Manecke (de-M) 04:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Unused to-do list from 2010 Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
At the moment there are only two existing pages in this template, which doesn't really provide good navigation (and the links between them are already found in the infobox at the top of each page). Primefac ( talk) 14:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- delete, these have been largely replaced by categories. Frietjes ( talk) 14:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Years in Robotics ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There are no other "XXXX in robotics" pages, so this template essentially links between one page. Primefac ( talk) 13:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- delete this and the 2013 article. Frietjes ( talk) 14:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Unused, mostly redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails EXISTING as its doesn't support navgation. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Blatant misuse of template space. This is something that belongs in an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- delete, we have LST now for section sharing between articles. Frietjes ( talk) 14:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Welcome template that duplicates the function of other Welcome templates with a link to a essay WP:UNDERKILL. Furthermore, it promotes the essay WP:UNDERKILL. - KAP03( Talk • Contributions • Email) 03:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I do not think that new editors should be steered toward essays. Drmies ( talk) 03:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete.
WP:UNDERKILL is a very badly titled (and massively confusingly titled for a newbie) essay of questionable value or consensus.
Softlavender (
talk)
03:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Softlavender, it does not currently link to WP:UNDERKILL.
QuackGuru (
talk)
04:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- You mean not anymore. Drmies ( talk) 04:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes it does [1] (hence the name of the welcome template), and your move just now to unlink the essay [2] strikes me as disingenuous at best. Softlavender ( talk) 04:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Softlavender, it does not currently link to WP:UNDERKILL.
QuackGuru (
talk)
04:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I wanted to use an image that is related to an encyclopedia rather than use cookies. I thought it was a bad idea to try to change an existing template. What exactly is the current problem with the template? Please be specific. Furthermore, it does not promote the essay WP:UNDERKILL when it is not currently linked to the essay.
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- If all you want is an image, then create a standard welcome template that includes that image, and don't link your own essay in it or name it after your essay. It's that simple. Softlavender ( talk) 04:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
QuackGuru: The template guides new users to an essay that is of questionable value which is confusing for new users which is a problem. See Softlavender's comment.-
KAP03(
Talk •
Contributions •
Email)
04:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- The template currently guides new users to WP:CITE and other links.
QuackGuru (
talk)
04:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
QuackGuru: Well, then it duplicates other, more established welcome templates. -
KAP03(
Talk •
Contributions •
Email)
04:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- @ KAP03: If it duplicates other, more established welcome templates, then how come you have not nominated Template:welcome-citation for deletion? QuackGuru ( talk) 16:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
QuackGuru: Well, then it duplicates other, more established welcome templates. -
KAP03(
Talk •
Contributions •
Email)
04:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- The template currently guides new users to WP:CITE and other links.
QuackGuru (
talk)
04:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - As said, giving a newbie an essay won't work well. Template:welcome-citation works better by giving a newbie an existing guideline. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Query, Is there any policy against personal welcome message templates? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- No. That isn't at issue here.
Softlavender (
talk)
07:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- May I please move your comment and the response up and then remove the "Discussion" subheader,
Peter? The subheader makes editing this nomination more complicated than it should be easy. --
George Ho (
talk)
15:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem, • • •
Peter (Southwood)
(talk):
18:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sorted in chronological order. "Discussion" subheader removed. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem, • • •
Peter (Southwood)
(talk):
18:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- May I please move your comment and the response up and then remove the "Discussion" subheader,
Peter? The subheader makes editing this nomination more complicated than it should be easy. --
George Ho (
talk)
15:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- No. That isn't at issue here.
Softlavender (
talk)
07:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – These discussions are easier to follow when the article or template in question isn't being modified to negate arguments. By the time they reach closure, the first half of the comments no longer apply. Delete on the basis of duplicating more established templates with a confusing title (as of the time of this signing). -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 10:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - originally created to point new users to an new (controversial) essay... yes, it was modified once objections were raised, and this TfD was started... but now it is duplicative of other templates. No need for it.
Blueboar (
talk)
13:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- @ Blueboar: If now it is duplicative of other templates, then how come you have not nominated Template:welcome-citation for deletion? QuackGuru ( talk) 16:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- What is it a duplicate of? Also, keep in mind that the
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument isn't always the best way to defend against deletion. --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
16:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- What is
Template:Welcome-citation a duplicate of? There is no other welcoming template that encourages citing content.
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, you lost me. I thought you were telling
Blueboar that
Template:welcome-citation is a duplicate of another template, and therefore should have been nominated for deletion as well according to his/her rationale. --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
16:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Others are suggesting because there are existing similar templates then any new similar template is not needed. If that is the case how come
Template:welcome-citation was not nominated for deletion?
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- I am detecting some confusion... We seem to be conflating two separate templates. Be aware that in its current state, the template that is the focus of this TfD ( Template:Welcome-citationunderkill) is a duplicate of the template Template:welcome-citation (the only thing different seems to be the title). We don't need two identical templates. Blueboar ( talk) 17:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Others are suggesting because there are existing similar templates then any new similar template is not needed. If that is the case how come
Template:welcome-citation was not nominated for deletion?
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, you lost me. I thought you were telling
Blueboar that
Template:welcome-citation is a duplicate of another template, and therefore should have been nominated for deletion as well according to his/her rationale. --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
16:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- What is
Template:Welcome-citation a duplicate of? There is no other welcoming template that encourages citing content.
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- What is it a duplicate of? Also, keep in mind that the
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument isn't always the best way to defend against deletion. --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
16:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete — Per Blueboar as of 17:43, 24 June. Duplicative in its current form. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Not helpful. Being used to promote the WP:Citation underkill essay that is currently involved in a deletion discussion and talk page disputes. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or generalize+rename — It is important to let new users know that citations are important, but it would be better to link to more official policy or explanatory supplements at current time. — Paleo Neonate - 02:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Take a look at QuackGuru's other recently created template : Template:Welcome-citation. Is that what you have in mind? Blueboar ( talk) 11:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- delete, now duplicates Template:Welcome-citation. Frietjes ( talk) 14:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Unused, unclear purpose. Listed twice in 2011 with "No consensus" both times. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- It is a navigation aid. The purpose becomes clear if you look at e.g. this old version of B2. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- delete, since the last TfD this template has been orphaned, and I have not seen any objections since the orphaning back in 2011. Frietjes ( talk) 14:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. The template is unused (and is unusable per current
disambiguation page guidelines in that this template does not
aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question
-- it was meant to help navigate to different terms in arbitrary sequence). older ≠ wiser 15:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
No clear criteria for inclusion. The beatles were super popular, and about 75% of the recording world has crossed paths with them. For instance, what do Peter and Gordon have to do with the Beatles? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, Peter and Gordon had plenty to do with the Beatles(!) ... I agree, though, and I'd say it's bordering on trivia. (In the same way, we have articles on Beatles family members that really aren't worthy of an article: e.g. the only notable thing about Alfred Lennon, Jim and Mary McCartney and George Toogood Smith is that they had a familial relationship with an extremely famous musician.) As someone who works a lot on Wikipedia's Beatles articles, I don't think it would be any great loss to see the template gone. I was looking for other, similar examples, and there are only three: Template:People associated with The Beach Boys, Template:People associated with Public Interest Research Group and Template:People associated with Green Corps – so perhaps they all belong here at TfD. JG66 ( talk) 05:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose, The Beatles hold such an important place in world history, in the history of the era, and of music in general, that this template should stay. The associated and listed names are a large part of the history, and losing it would necessitate greatly expanding other Beatle templates. The template could be trimmed a bit (Ed Sullivan, Donovan, etc. and other semi-tangential links), but kept on board.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
00:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Randy Kryn: So it's "important" that [insert act here] rubbed shoulders with the beatles once? There's no clear criteria for what should be included. Obviously, something like George Martin or Wings would be included, but what do Peter and Gordon have to do with the Beatles? Or many of the other acts here? This clearly fails
WP:PERFNAV. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
04:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Peter Asher, one half of Peter and Gordon, is the brother of Jane Asher, who was Paul McCartney's girlfriend before Linda Eastman came on the scene. Less tangentially, Lennon and McCartney wrote several songs for Peter and Gordon between 1964 and 1966, such as " A World Without Love"; " Nobody I Know"; " I Don't Want to See You Again"; and " Woman". -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 08:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- One thing this discussion shows so far is that, even with the precise content being a peripheral subject, no one here's in agreement over who belongs in the template and who doesn't! (e.g. Donovan's way more "associated" than some of the names that appear; Wings aren't included.) Which goes some way to support the idea that the criteria for inclusion's unclear, or at least that it's highly subjective. In the past, the question of associated acts in the infobox at
the Beatles has led to some differences of opinion. There are some
guidelines on this at Template:Infobox musical artist, so perhaps something similar is needed in Template:People associated with The Beatles, if it is to be kept. Another thing:
Randy Kryn, I fail to see how losing this template would mean "greatly expanding other Beatle templates" – why, and which ones?
JG66 (
talk)
07:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- "Rubbed shoulders with the Beatles once" is an incorrect definition of this template, which of course should be trimmed and organized and have a better and higher inclusion bar. Maybe not 'greatly expanding' other templates, but the main Beatles template doesn't include Brian Epstein or George Martin, so would have to include a section of 'Associated people', and then again it runs into who should or should not be included. Keeping this one and working it into a better form would keep the Wikipedia-map quality of the template and Beatles history while providing information of interest to serious Beatle fans or researchers. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Randy Kryn: So it's "important" that [insert act here] rubbed shoulders with the beatles once? There's no clear criteria for what should be included. Obviously, something like George Martin or Wings would be included, but what do Peter and Gordon have to do with the Beatles? Or many of the other acts here? This clearly fails
WP:PERFNAV. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
04:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
delete fails WP:PERFNAV 68.151.25.115 ( talk) 23:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)- Keep – per the argument "the main Beatles template doesn't include Brian Epstein or George Martin, so would have to include a section of 'Associated people', and then again it runs into who should or should not be included" – if you don't believe Donovan is really associated with the Beatles then simply remove him from the template --
Ilovetopaint (
talk)
03:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
cite something policy-related. This is a clear case of avoiding over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of performer's articles 68.151.25.115 ( talk) 15:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)- If that policy applied in this context then we would also have to remove John, Paul, George, and Ringo's links.-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 13:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 moving to userspace. It appears there is weak consensus to cut-and-paste this to create a vote table for the next major Senate vote, but for that it can live in any namespace. For now, I am moving it to User:Classicwiki/115th United States Senate Roll Call, but feel free to move it elsewhere (even back to where it was) if there is more clarity on how it should be used, and in which namespace it should live. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- It is a template off of which things can be customized.
Template:115th United States Senate Roll Call helped in building
Template:Trump confirmations and
Template:Trump confirmations2. You can see it being used in
Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination#Confirmation_vote. Although the template isn't invoked in the traditional sense, it is still used on Wikipedia. It saves editors the painstaking process in building their own version of the table when the time comes to display a
United States Senate vote on articles. Additionally, it keeps those tables somewhat uniform in style. As
115th United States Congress ends on January 3, 2019, there is still ample time for this template to serve its purpose. I hope that it will be kept, but understand otherwise. (Please ping when you respond)
Classicwiki (
talk)
16:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
-
Classicwiki, I would suggest either (a) moving it to project space if it's meant to be cut-and-paste, (b) turning it into a proper template where you can supply votes for each of the names and substitute it to get the resulting table.
Frietjes (
talk)
22:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Still feel very new to Wikipedia. What project space would you recommend? I can't picture what your saying in the second option. When you invoke a template, doesn't it come as is (barring any changes to size/state)? How would I go about doing your second option? Is there another template where I can see this in action? Classicwiki ( talk) 22:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
-
Classicwiki, I would suggest either (a) moving it to project space if it's meant to be cut-and-paste, (b) turning it into a proper template where you can supply votes for each of the names and substitute it to get the resulting table.
Frietjes (
talk)
22:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Frietjes: If you have an opportunity to get to my questions above, I appreciate it. I plan on using the template if the US Senate comes to a vote on the Better Care Reconciliation Act. Thanks, Classicwiki ( talk) (ping me) 04:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
-
Classicwiki, did you see
this change?
Frietjes (
talk)
12:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Frietjes:, thanks for that. I understand what you mean now. Two concerns: 1.) what happens if a senator changes? Wouldn't all past templates usages be affected, or would you just omit the departed senator in the change? 2.) The articles/templates that use the information from this template color code the vote results, is it possible to conditionally format this template? If this is all too much work, and proves your point as to why the template should be deleted, I totally understand. Best,
Classicwiki (
talk) (ping me)
20:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Classicwiki, the fact that the composition of the senate isn't static is why I said "substitute it" (as in WP:SUBST) to get the resulting table. what people usually do in situations like this is just copy the table from the last time it was used (e.g., from Neil_Gorsuch_Supreme_Court_nomination#Confirmation_vote) and modify it for the new vote. if you want to keep a copy of a blank table somewhere, you could use a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. Frietjes ( talk) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Frietjes:, thanks for that. I understand what you mean now. Two concerns: 1.) what happens if a senator changes? Wouldn't all past templates usages be affected, or would you just omit the departed senator in the change? 2.) The articles/templates that use the information from this template color code the vote results, is it possible to conditionally format this template? If this is all too much work, and proves your point as to why the template should be deleted, I totally understand. Best,
Classicwiki (
talk) (ping me)
20:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Lang-en-AU ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a utility template, one of a set for varieties of English. If any are available to use they all should be, rather than penalizing certain varieties. Consider the entire set:
- {{ Lang-en-AU}}
- {{ Lang-en-CA}}
- {{ Lang-en-GB}}
- {{ Lang-en-IE}}
- {{ Lang-en-NZ}}
- {{ Lang-en-US}}
- {{ Lang-en-ZA}}
- There are occasional uses of some of these. The previous discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13#Template:Lang-en-AU and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13#Template:Lang-en-US closed as no consensus. StarryGrandma ( talk) 16:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep (or Merge): These are underutilized, not useless, and as observed above they are a set. If some are already used, all should be retained. In this they are like flag, country, and other "set" templates. As briefly discussed at nom's talk page, I'm not opposed to merging these into their parent template, as parameters – if and only if the work is done to replace their extant uses with calls to that template with the correct parameters. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Lang-en-NZ ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused and doesn't actually do anything when transcluded, for some reason.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I've fixed the template so it now works. See comment above about the set of language templates. StarryGrandma ( talk) 16:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep (or maybe merge); see above multi-template discussion for details. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 keep , but feel free to merge it assuming there are no issues with doing so. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Language with name2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions except as demonstration in a MoS page.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
09:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete only if the two templates which use this, {{
Lang-en-US2}} and {{
Lang-en-GB2}} (currently proposed for deletion), are deleted.
StarryGrandma (
talk)
16:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: These (now redlinked) were not just deleted, but merged then deleted. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: appears to be used by Template:Lang-en-US and Template:Lang-en-GB
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: appears to be used by Template:Lang-en-US and Template:Lang-en-GB
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- keep or merge with template:Language with name. Frietjes ( talk) 13:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, or merge with
{{ Language with name}}. This serves a purpose (even if presently under-utilized); it just isn't essential that it be a separate template instead of a parameter-induced variant. As with the above related templates, just make sure extant calls to it are replaced with calls to{{Language with name}}with the needed parameter; see the merge I did of{{Lang-en-US2}}and{{Lang-en-GB2}}'s functionality to{{ Lang-en-US}}and{{ Lang-en-GB}}, respectively (though I don't know if the needed followup was done after deletion of the *2 variants – I'm just assuming so since TfD admins usually know what they're doing. ;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Is this a joke? If this ever happens, we can use the normal current template. KMF ( talk) 17:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Manecke (de-M) 04:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Unused to-do list from 2010 Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
At the moment there are only two existing pages in this template, which doesn't really provide good navigation (and the links between them are already found in the infobox at the top of each page). Primefac ( talk) 14:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- delete, these have been largely replaced by categories. Frietjes ( talk) 14:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Years in Robotics ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
There are no other "XXXX in robotics" pages, so this template essentially links between one page. Primefac ( talk) 13:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- delete this and the 2013 article. Frietjes ( talk) 14:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Unused, mostly redlinks Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails EXISTING as its doesn't support navgation. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Blatant misuse of template space. This is something that belongs in an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- delete, we have LST now for section sharing between articles. Frietjes ( talk) 14:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Welcome template that duplicates the function of other Welcome templates with a link to a essay WP:UNDERKILL. Furthermore, it promotes the essay WP:UNDERKILL. - KAP03( Talk • Contributions • Email) 03:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I do not think that new editors should be steered toward essays. Drmies ( talk) 03:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete.
WP:UNDERKILL is a very badly titled (and massively confusingly titled for a newbie) essay of questionable value or consensus.
Softlavender (
talk)
03:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Softlavender, it does not currently link to WP:UNDERKILL.
QuackGuru (
talk)
04:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- You mean not anymore. Drmies ( talk) 04:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes it does [1] (hence the name of the welcome template), and your move just now to unlink the essay [2] strikes me as disingenuous at best. Softlavender ( talk) 04:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Softlavender, it does not currently link to WP:UNDERKILL.
QuackGuru (
talk)
04:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I wanted to use an image that is related to an encyclopedia rather than use cookies. I thought it was a bad idea to try to change an existing template. What exactly is the current problem with the template? Please be specific. Furthermore, it does not promote the essay WP:UNDERKILL when it is not currently linked to the essay.
QuackGuru (
talk)
03:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- If all you want is an image, then create a standard welcome template that includes that image, and don't link your own essay in it or name it after your essay. It's that simple. Softlavender ( talk) 04:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
QuackGuru: The template guides new users to an essay that is of questionable value which is confusing for new users which is a problem. See Softlavender's comment.-
KAP03(
Talk •
Contributions •
Email)
04:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- The template currently guides new users to WP:CITE and other links.
QuackGuru (
talk)
04:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
QuackGuru: Well, then it duplicates other, more established welcome templates. -
KAP03(
Talk •
Contributions •
Email)
04:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- @ KAP03: If it duplicates other, more established welcome templates, then how come you have not nominated Template:welcome-citation for deletion? QuackGuru ( talk) 16:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
QuackGuru: Well, then it duplicates other, more established welcome templates. -
KAP03(
Talk •
Contributions •
Email)
04:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- The template currently guides new users to WP:CITE and other links.
QuackGuru (
talk)
04:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - As said, giving a newbie an essay won't work well. Template:welcome-citation works better by giving a newbie an existing guideline. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Query, Is there any policy against personal welcome message templates? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- No. That isn't at issue here.
Softlavender (
talk)
07:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- May I please move your comment and the response up and then remove the "Discussion" subheader,
Peter? The subheader makes editing this nomination more complicated than it should be easy. --
George Ho (
talk)
15:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem, • • •
Peter (Southwood)
(talk):
18:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sorted in chronological order. "Discussion" subheader removed. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem, • • •
Peter (Southwood)
(talk):
18:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- May I please move your comment and the response up and then remove the "Discussion" subheader,
Peter? The subheader makes editing this nomination more complicated than it should be easy. --
George Ho (
talk)
15:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- No. That isn't at issue here.
Softlavender (
talk)
07:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – These discussions are easier to follow when the article or template in question isn't being modified to negate arguments. By the time they reach closure, the first half of the comments no longer apply. Delete on the basis of duplicating more established templates with a confusing title (as of the time of this signing). -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 10:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - originally created to point new users to an new (controversial) essay... yes, it was modified once objections were raised, and this TfD was started... but now it is duplicative of other templates. No need for it.
Blueboar (
talk)
13:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- @ Blueboar: If now it is duplicative of other templates, then how come you have not nominated Template:welcome-citation for deletion? QuackGuru ( talk) 16:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- What is it a duplicate of? Also, keep in mind that the
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument isn't always the best way to defend against deletion. --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
16:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- What is
Template:Welcome-citation a duplicate of? There is no other welcoming template that encourages citing content.
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, you lost me. I thought you were telling
Blueboar that
Template:welcome-citation is a duplicate of another template, and therefore should have been nominated for deletion as well according to his/her rationale. --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
16:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Others are suggesting because there are existing similar templates then any new similar template is not needed. If that is the case how come
Template:welcome-citation was not nominated for deletion?
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- I am detecting some confusion... We seem to be conflating two separate templates. Be aware that in its current state, the template that is the focus of this TfD ( Template:Welcome-citationunderkill) is a duplicate of the template Template:welcome-citation (the only thing different seems to be the title). We don't need two identical templates. Blueboar ( talk) 17:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Others are suggesting because there are existing similar templates then any new similar template is not needed. If that is the case how come
Template:welcome-citation was not nominated for deletion?
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, you lost me. I thought you were telling
Blueboar that
Template:welcome-citation is a duplicate of another template, and therefore should have been nominated for deletion as well according to his/her rationale. --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
16:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- What is
Template:Welcome-citation a duplicate of? There is no other welcoming template that encourages citing content.
QuackGuru (
talk)
16:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- What is it a duplicate of? Also, keep in mind that the
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument isn't always the best way to defend against deletion. --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
16:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete — Per Blueboar as of 17:43, 24 June. Duplicative in its current form. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Not helpful. Being used to promote the WP:Citation underkill essay that is currently involved in a deletion discussion and talk page disputes. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or generalize+rename — It is important to let new users know that citations are important, but it would be better to link to more official policy or explanatory supplements at current time. — Paleo Neonate - 02:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Take a look at QuackGuru's other recently created template : Template:Welcome-citation. Is that what you have in mind? Blueboar ( talk) 11:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- delete, now duplicates Template:Welcome-citation. Frietjes ( talk) 14:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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).