Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 25

< January 24	January 26 >

January 25

Template:Lundy

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template simply provides an external link to a website: http://www.thepeerage.com/ That website is self-published by a hobbyist, Darryl Lundy, who is not a recognized expert in the field. The website does not qualify as a reliable source or a suitable external link. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#thepeerage.com, plus WP:ELNO and WP:SPS. Will Beback talk 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why is that a template? How does it help the articles it's on to just have a link without anything else like that at the end of the references? And that's without the whole not even necessarily being a reliable source thing... -— Isarra (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally a fuller attribution template, before this edit. If indeed the site in question does provide a significant basis for the articles which link to it (and I wouldn't rule that out), I'd argue that we are compelled to continue the attribution. The most obvious first step would be undoing the diff in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good sleuthing. That complicates matters. I doubt that content was copied in all of the 600+ articles where the template is used. But figuring out which ones may be complicated. Also, the website is presumably copyrighted, so I'm not sure why we would have copied material from it to begin with. I think the next step may be to try to get the editors who've use the template to explain if they copied material or just added the link. Will Beback talk 07:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We don't need to attribute (though we may cite) information sourced elsewhere, only copyrightable text/ images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, but any information that was copied should be removed (unless added with a GFDL license). I'll spot check the articles to which it was added while it was still an attribution template. It may have been misused to give attribution unnecessarily, in which case there'd be no impediment to deleting it outright. Will Beback talk 08:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No; Wikipedia is composed of information found on other sites. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've notified user:Tryde of this discussion. I think he may have added most of them. I checked a couple and it doesn't look like he actually copied any material, but has simply used the link as "further reading" entry. If so, there'd be no problem with simply deleting it. Will Beback talk 11:26, 30 January 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:Danish Special Forces

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) 18:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Danish Special Forces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no parent article, and redundant to Template:Military of Denmark. Frietjes (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to {{Military of Denmark}}. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:10, 5 February 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:Monarchs of Ireland

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monarchs of Ireland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Snappy (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2012 (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) 03:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use Seems like a perfectly good navbox to me; the succession boxes are typically about the UK as a whole. --N Y Kevin @988, i.e. 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but someone should go through an put the template on the appropriate pages so a reader can actually navigate with the navbox. (Guess I should finally teach myself how to use AWB.) SENATOR2029 (talk) 15:37, 2 February 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:Rescue cleanup

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rescue cleanup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

For the reasons already given at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_13#Template:Rescue, primarily irrelevance and superseded by other practices. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The process by which articles survive an AfD should be heavily weighted towards the "improve the article first, then comment based on the improvements" as opposed to "turn up at the AfD with alleged improvements and hope somebody else makes them". That obviates the need for this template on top of the existing {{refimprove}} or {{notability}} tags. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a talkspace template (change the {{ambox}} to a {{tmbox}} and rewrite) Mainspace templates are supposed to have a limited shelf-life; the circumstances when this template should be removed are unclear. But I think the ARS does have the right to advertise itself on talk pages like many other WikiProjects. I know for a fact that WP:GOCE has a talkspace template analogous to this one. --N Y Kevin @054, i.e. 00:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important note - Some users have commented regarding this tag at the WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron talk page, titled: Proposal for Rescue cleanup template. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as otiose (item 3 under "Reasons to delete a template" on WP:TFD), since it's currently not in use in any articles, and I can't recall ever seeing it used. If anyone really thinks it may have some purpose, make it a talk-page template as NYKevin says above; that's the proper location for project templates. (It could stand to be redesigned to be less garish, though.) Deor (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to talkspace. It can be used to summarize the result of an AfD that was kept because of proven notability but was shown to require significant improvement in form. And like NYKevin said, I fail to see how the ARS could be different to other WikiProjects in that respect. Diego (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert to talkspace In its current form it seems like an advertisement for the ARS. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert to talk page template as an article template it is redundant to other templates such as {{notability}}, {{refimprove}}, converting it to a talk page notice would be acceptable. Mt king ^(edits) 00:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reason to delete this would have nothing do with Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_13#Template:Rescue, but instead because I can't recall ever seeing it used. Article improvement is everyone's calling. Most terrible articles never make it to AfD and never will.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Converting this to a Talk namespace template may be the best route, for use on article talk pages, rather than in Main namespace. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. This template has multiple flaws: a) it's currently unused, and seems to be superfluous; b) it confuses the legitimate function of flagging an article as needing improvement by adding some blatant self-promotion for the ARS.
If editors feel that there is a need for yet another cleanup template (in this case to flag an article as having arrived AFD but still needing new work), then that template should be constructed in a neutral way rather than as an advertisement for what the NYT described as an "elite strike force" within Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to Template:Old AfD multi, which currently is used in talkspace. The only difference is that template doesn't advertise the ARS or solicit help with further article improvements. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to have "Old AfD multi" contain some content regarding "you may continue to improve this article," but there's no reason for ARS to have their own advertisement version of the template at all, and there's certainly no reason for it to be atop the article rather than the talk. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serves no purpose other than blatant spam for a wikiproject. Reso lute 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its the world worst spam vehicle, since its never used, and has never been used. It was only created in September 2011, and the creator User talk:Nuujinn hasn't been seen for a month. Our super secret templates are the ones we use to shamelessly canvass and such.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That it is not currently being used doesn't change my opinion that it has no use other than self-promotion. Reso lute 19:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but its never been used ever, it has nothing to do with anything ARS actually does. And honestly, if ARS wanted to do anything like this, they could simply spam the talk pages of rescued articles with a similar comment. The idea in the nomination that this template has been "superseded by other practices" is laughable, there was nothing to supersede because it was never used. Tarc's vote is the only one approaching reality.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is like an ARS version of Kilroy was here. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-Purpose As per above the best solution is to allow this template to be re-designed and re-purposed to be a talk page template. So what if ARS wants to claim articles that they feel were saved from deletion by their efforts. I see no reason to reject it as a WikiProject Banner. Heck, it could even serve as a Deletionist target (Articles that were nominated for deletion that ARS got saved) if ARS wants to keep it. Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a Talk namespace template, per my comment above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:16, 31 January 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.