Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 8

< October 7	October 9 >

October 8 edit

Template:Great Western Lacrosse League 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) 05:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Great Western Lacrosse League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The GWLL folded back in 2010, all of these teams are in other conferences now. Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless. It doesn't even link to the actual lacrosse teams! -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 16 October 2012 (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:DWspinoff 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) 05:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Current text is tautologous and the template's use is generally original research. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my comments above, I find this template problematic for a number of reasons.

1. After much debate and editing back and forth, we have a piece of text that says very little. It is almost a tautology. Thus, there's no point in it.

2. It's original research. We don't have reliable sources supporting the inclusion of this text on any of hundreds of articles. Instead of tagging every one of those as 'cite needed', let's just kill the template.

3. It's boilerplate text: it says the same thing on multiple different articles. Why should it? These articles cover very different things, made in different circumstances, made by different companies, with differing relationships to the TV series. Each article should only have what WP:RS say about the topic of that article. Personally, I think the number of articles detailing every minor Doctor Who spin-off are questionable when most will never have any WP:RS citations beyond a Doctor Who Magazine listing (if that even meets WP:RS criteria). For Wikipedia to then impose some generic comment on all of them doesn't help.

4. Even the text in its current insipid form implies that there is a canon debate, but that's a very fan-ish presumption in the first place. It's not encyclopaedic.

By the way, note that there was a previous deletion debate, although the text has evolved considerably since then. Bondegezou (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points well made. Delete. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't think of anything to add Rankersbo (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimery boilerplate that's surprisingly survived since the days before we cared about such things. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't really see the point in maintaining it. Even if the text is relevant (I'm not sure canon is something an encylopaedia should discuss without reliable sources) in some cases it can surely be added in ordinary prose. Agree with points 1-4 made by Bondegezou. Eshlare (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2012 (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:Vandalism warning warning 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vandalism warning warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been made redundant by the more civil, and appropriate in my opinion, {{subst:uw-notvand}}. If there is a cause to use this as the next level up (that is the user ignored uw-notvand) then I think a personalised message would be more appropriate anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The uw-template is better-worded, better-titled and better-styled. There's no reason to duplicate it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This template, it seems to me, is doing a rather different job to uw-notvand, so there's space for both of them (although Callanecc is right that a personalised message would often be better). Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's bordering on being nasty (as boilerplate messages often are, thanks to their impersonal tone and attempts to cover all bases). Perhaps redirect to the uw- if people are still using this one. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that {{Uw-notvand}} is sufficient. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:26, 16 October 2012 (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.