Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 30

< September 29	October 1 >

September 30

Template:Auto isbn

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 userfied (redirect deleted). JPG-GR (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Auto isbn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Outdated and unnecessary; it's way past 2007. All instances have been replaced with plain 13-digit ISBNs. Cybercobra (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this can go, nice though it is. However there is some valuable talk. Rich Farmbrough, 21:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. No current use in articles, and no need for it going forward. I looked at the talk page content, and I think the relevant issues are also discussed elsewhere, such as WT:ISBN. Still it wouldn't be crazy for someone to userfy a copy of the talk page if they think there's something important on it that isn't repeated elsewhere. --RL0919 (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unused, an really useless...hard to imagine anyone taking the time to use it that way to try to format an ISBN versus just putting in the dashes by hand. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what it did at all. It provided a way to switch over from ISBN 10 to ISBN 13 on all WP pages at precisely the time when ISBN 10 was deprecated. As it happens neither WP nor the wider world were ready for that, moreover as a side effect the template is effectively useless 1 second after the end of 2006 if unused. Rich Farmbrough, 13:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The {{cite}} templates allow both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 templates and are relatively flexible in their formats, which then link up to the book search sites. The argument on the template's documentation that to do so is error-prone is bizarre, because this one needs five bars in it to separate out the numbers only then to stick them back together. It serves no good purpose that I can see. SimonTrew (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The template talk is indeed interesting, and should be kept somehow even if the template itself is deleted. I also would suggest that the template were called something else, in particular that "ISBN" was in capitals. SimonTrew (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "ISBN" would be unduly confusing considering the ISBN magicword. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Well kinda. Or more accurately no. Since part of what it does is the ISBN magic word functionality, and you wouldn't (have) want(ed) people doing "ISBN ISBN 978-0-593-01518-6 " Rich Farmbrough, 13:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I moved this to my user space at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Rich_Farmbrough/ISBN/Template:Auto_isbn. Rich Farmbrough, 13:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Userfy as already done, just voicing support for the action. -- Ned Scott 14:58, 2 October 2009 (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:Deal or No Deal US

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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deal or No Deal US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Scope too small. Most of the links were inappropriate splits that have since been redirected back to the main article. As it stands, there are only 5 actual articles linked here. –xeno^talk 18:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. - Altenmann >t 15:37, 2 October 2009 (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:WCE

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 relisted at MfD. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Un-used...dead category; pretty, but dead Mjquin_id (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete template is not in use. Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk Review Me!
Close and relist. Userboxes should be taken to WP:MfD. Also, this userbox is being used on at least one user page. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved-- Mjquin_id (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2009 (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:Supertribus

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 as unused, if necessary, classifications can be added to {{taxobox}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Taxobox supertribus entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Taxobox supertribus entry This family of two templates is not in use at all on Wikipedia. Both templates have been officialy deprecated over a year ago in favor of {{Taxobox}}. Debresser (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' This should be left until Taxobox adds tribus, subtribus and supertribus to the classification levels available. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (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:Pekinensis wrapper

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) 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pekinensis wrapper (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pekinensis tail regnum Plantae (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pekinensis tail genus Chenopodium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pekinensis tail familia Amaranthaceae (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pekinensis tail divisio Magnoliophyta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pekinensis tail classis Magnoliopsida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pekinensis tail ordo Caryophyllales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This family of templates is not in use at all on Wikipedia. (Note: apart from 1 userpage, and by each other). Three of the templates have been officialy deprecated over a year ago in favor of {{Taxobox}}, and the others should have been. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems noncontroversial. - Altenmann >t 15:34, 2 October 2009 (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:Digimon Wiki

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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Digimon Wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely inappropriate template used to add a fansite wikia across various Digimon articles with completely inappropriate EL formatting. Link completely violates WP:EL, so templates encouraging its addition are not appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This basic issue (not specific to DW, but in general) has been discussed before. Examples include Template talk:FreeContentMeta Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 30#Template:FreeContentMeta, Wikipedia talk:Linking to other wikis. This is just one of many external wiki templates used (see Category:Wikia templates, Category:External link templates).

The closest thing I can see to this violating WP:EL is WP:ELNO #11 and #12. For #11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites", this would be a case where almost any external link for a TV show/anime/etc would be considered a fan site. The spirit behind that entry is to avoid issues like listing every tiny little fansite under the sun. Digimon Wiki is the largest non-offical Digimon related site on the internet, primarily because the majority of it's content (literally hundreds of articles) were transferred from Wikipedia to there.

For #12 "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.", the exception clearly excludes Digimon Wiki. As I said above, this content was generated from, and is continually maintained by countless editors. I know this for a fact because I imported full article histories for most of the articles on Digimon Wiki. Aside from being a massive juggernaut like Memory Alpha, this is the very definition of substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

As I mentioned above, Digimon Wiki is the result of transwiking hundreds of articles that-- while informational -- were not meeting our fictional notability guidelines. For the first few months there was an even greater amount of linking to Digimon Wiki, including soft redirects, to help avoid recreation, as well as anger and frustration from past editors. (Of course we have since paired back such links as time has gone on) As a result it was one of the smoothest transitions I've seen, and a prime example of how to deal with content other than deleting it. Continued use of these external wikis, and linking to them when appropriate, allows us to maintain this. It's something mentioned in guidelines such as WP:WAF#Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles and old drafts of the former guideline WP:FICT as a way to help direct the efforts of editors who may be tempted to write such articles (that don't meet notability standards, etc) on Wikipedia.

The only other issue I can think that the nominator might have had was the use of an image in the template's format. I've since removed this as it was just a lingering idea (never actually rejected, just kind of ... there..) from when there was a dispute about how to format such links. (see Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis for a little bit of background on that issue) -- Ned Scott 09:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: In what sense does the link "completely" violate WP:EL? For those of us who aren't up on the ins-and-outs of this stuff. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO #11 and #12 - its a fansite and a open wiki. Despite the argument above, it is not one with a "substantial history of stability" nor a substantial number of editors. As noted, large amounts of its content are rejected content from Wikipedia, which certainly doesn't show it to be a good link that meets the guidelines of what ELs should be included. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, ELs that contain content that Wikipedia cannot are the ones we should (and do) link to. (WP:ELYES #3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.")

How is Digimon Wiki unstable? Is the content not the result of thousands of editors, [1]?

Do you feel the same way about ELs (and its related template, {{memoryalpha}}) to Memory Alpha? (which is also hosted on Wikia)? -- Ned Scott 03:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is exactly the sort of situation covered by WP:ELYES #3 and is useful to readers who want more detail about Digimon than is acceptable here (as evidenced by the many transwikis). This is no different than linking to Wookieepedia or Memory Alpha, it simply covers a less-mainstream topic. BryanG (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful means to channel fancruft away from wikipedia. Without it, we will continue spending countless wikiman-hours on policing all these fictional universes kids just love to write about. - Altenmann >t 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:ELYES #3, that seems to cover exactly this sort of situation -- therefore, keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (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:Phobias

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 and replace with a "see also" List of phobias or an equivalent category Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template instead of assisting navigation, in fact, greatly hinders it. Unlike most navboxes, it does not link closely related items together: the only thiung in common is that they have suffix -phobia. As such, List of phobias or category:Phobias can do exactly the same, and the list is even better, sice it explains these sometimes rather cryptic grecologisms. As for hindering, it makes very cumbersome to use the feature "what links here" to find additional tangential information, since it always shows these same 100+ "phobia" articles Mukadderat (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no mutually complementary information in the articles listed by this template. I understand that after reading about arachnophobia, someone may idly want to click on keraunophobia (like, "WTH is this"?), but this is not a kind of encyclopedic navigation. - Altenmann >t 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The navbox is just an alphabetical list that doesn't provide any significant value beyond what the list article and the category offer, and they do it with much less clutter on the individual article pages. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2009 (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.