Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 25

< February 24	February 26 >

February 25 edit

Template:Sichuan Radio edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sichuan Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently, my nomination of this page for G8 was "ridiculous". Fair enough; maybe G6 would have been better. Still, this template is useless (two redlinks only, and no main article on the topic), and currently unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G8 Delete Not at all ridiculous. No articles for the topic yet. Don't put the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with TPH. If there are no articles for this to link between it is useless --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that G8 are only for pages dependent on a non-existent page (talk pages without a corresponding subject page, subpages without a parent page), as shown here. And this page is a single page, so it does not meet any criteria for G8. Thanks. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 01:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this doesn't need to slog its way through TFD. It's a total no-brainer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Facebook edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Snow Keep and Request Withdrawn. It appears that consensus is favor of enforcing WP:ELNO rather than deleting the the template altogether. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Facebook links are neither reliable sources, nor do they hold any encyclopedic value. Also per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a facebook directory. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I see where you're coming from. However, I recognize Facebook pages belonging to current, living figures as reliable links, as they add another element to these figures' part on Wikipedia. If this template is deleted, we will have to edit a ton, and I repeat, a ton of pages to accommodate this new policy you're seeking to enact. Also, we'd need to delete the templates for IMDb, Twitter and what-not, which I am strongly opposed to. So, that's my $0.02. DarthBotto_talk•cont 02:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:IRS facebook and twitter are not considered reliable sources. It is discouraged to include links to social networking sites. External links are designed to include additional information on the topic. (for example IMDb} As defined by WP:External links, external links should be "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Facebook and twitter both fail this requirement. This template can be easily orphaned using Auto Wiki Browser in about two hours time. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment It would be better if {{official website}} were modified to handle facebook links. (Official facebook page or something). {{homepage}} should also redirect there. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I tend to agree with the responses of both DarthBotto and 65.93.15.125 above. While I'm not a Facebook guy myself, I think that if a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, their Facebook page would -- at least in general -- be something worth linking to. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Why is this template being eradicated? The websites would remain on the pages regardless, but they'd look sloppy. 100% keep. -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal to add facebook to the spam blacklist [1]. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I also agree with DarthBotto and others in keeping this. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, IMDb, etc. all add additional elements to these notable living persons and are reliable links in regards to these figures.Tweebee (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks[reply]

I am not proposing the removal of IMDb. IMDb meets the criteria as a valid external link. This current proposal is to removal of only facebook links, which spams about 3/4 of the BLP articles. As facebook has no other use other than to provide contact information there is not really any encyclopedic value. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think you fundamentally misunderstand what Facebook is, Alpha Quadrant. Facebook is used for far more than just contact information, it also functions as a blogging service, image hosting service, announcements, etc. ad nauseam. In many respects a person's Facebook page is their personal website and certainly should be linked to from the article. Ashanda (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that for some people they primary use facebook as their website, however Wikipedia is not a facebook directory. All BLPs with facebook accounts should not have facebook links. Per WP:ELNO #10 facebook links should not be used unless it is the person's official web page. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Facebook is a top five website, much like Wikipedia or Google. Facebook is not some fad. Plus Facebook has THOUSANDS of Wikipedia related pages on it. There is a ton of Wikipedia information that is used on Facebook so it would make no sense for Wikipedia not to have a Facebook template. The Social Network is poised to possibly win Best Picture at this year's Oscars and this will gel Facebook into the popular culture forever, even moreso than it is now. Strong, strong keep. Keep the Facebook template for Wikipedia.12.196.37.227 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep98.151.53.27 (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - official pages on Facebook have become relevant than company web pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattMDK (talk • contribs) 08:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As long as the facebook page in question is controlled by the subject of the article, (i.e. it is the Official Page of the subject) I think it is perfectly fine to link the page from the article. Besides, thats what is mentioned in External Links. I also agree with everything that has been said above. And, Alpha Quadrant, like you mentioned above in reply to Ashanda, it can be used if it is the Official Page. Halemane (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Philippine television logos edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippine television logos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless template with no article using it. Also, it duplicates the function of the {{Television in the Philippines}} template. -WayKurat (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:South Africa Calling Code edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Africa Calling Code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All links redirect to same page. Useless. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless for navigation if all links redirect to 1 page. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:T^32 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as G7. NAC. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:T^32 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Purpose unclear, but it seems a bit excessive. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:R from person edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates don't have many transclusions, and are better off redirecting to Template:R from member which covers their purposes. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 03:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The fact that they don't have "many" transclusions is irrelevant for redirect templates because most redirects have not been tagged yet. {{R from person}} and {{R from people}} cover all people, whereas {{R from member}} only applies to members of groups, so they are not the same at all. Category:Redirects from members is a subcategory of Category:Redirects from individual people. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject The Offspring edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete as dependent on a deleted project Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject The Offspring (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The project has been deleted. There seems to reason to keep this around. Guerillero | My Talk 03:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kill this thing since this project has been deleted. Alex (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete via G6 or G8, uncontroversial housekeeping for leftover template for a deleted Wikiproject. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PD-art-georgia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-art-georgia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{PD-art|PD-old-70}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PD-art-life-50-aus edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-art-life-50-aus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template; generally this type of image should be housed on commons anyway; somewhat redundant to {{PD-art|PD-Australia}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PD-art-life-70 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-art-life-70 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{PD-art|PD-old-70}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep same as my objection to PD-art-US-1996 below. If you're not sure what template to use, it's a lot easier to find this one than the combination of two (one passed to the other) that the nom proposes. --Selket ^Talk 07:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PD-art-US edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-art-US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{PD-art|PD-US}}, {{PD-art|PD-USonly}} or a similar variant (e.g., US-1923-abroad, US-URAA) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep same as my objection to PD-art-US-1996 below. If you're not sure what template to use, it's a lot easier to find this one than the combination of two (one passed to the other) that the nom proposes. --Selket ^Talk 07:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PD-art-US-1996 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-art-US-1996 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{PD-art|PD-URAA}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ keep this one. It's a lot easier to find this in the pd-templates category than to try to find that combination of two templates proposed by the nom. If the argument is just simplicity (as opposed to this template violating some other copyright policy) then I think having this template is simpler than not. --Selket ^Talk 07:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:All interwikis same name edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All interwikis same name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With all due respect to template creator, I foresee no valuable usage whatsoever for this template, with the possible exception of the main page, which is already taken up by {{Main Page interwikis}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's for user pages. Rich Farmbrough, 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

OK - but how many users have their SUL activated on every project and have blue links for their userpages there? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(s/project/language/) Subst it and delete the ones you don't want. Rich Farmbrough, 09:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No transclusions shows how impractical this template is—most interwiki bots aren't activated on every wiki, and they'll probably be under different names. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 13:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1 might make use of this. So could 2 probably. I can see this as being useful if it's subst'ed, but not for much else. Then again, there's not much potential for misuse, so it's hard to see the harm. --Selket ^Talk 01:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.