Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 8 January 10 >

January 9

[edit]


Template:Catalonia squad

[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catalonia squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:59, 9 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:Authority of

[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Authority of (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear, without translusions Bulwersator (talk) 22:58, 9 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:مدائن صالح

[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 already deleted, because of G2. mabdul 13:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:مدائن صالح (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 22:50, 9 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:C13 year in topic X

[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:C13 year in topic X (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:49, 9 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:CalStats

[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The California Statutes are a U.S. state version of the United States Statutes at Large for California, the largest state in the US. Most laws are state laws, not federal laws, making the California Statutes even more important that the Statutes at Large for about 12% of the population of the United States (California). As such, Template:CalStats is a counterpart to Template:USStat. The arguments for the usefulness of one fully applies to the other; that is to say Template:CalStats has the same usefulness and validity on Wikipedia as Template:USStat. If Template:CalStats must be deleted, then so must Template:USStat. Yes, the documentation does not exist and use is poor, but so are reliable, tertiary sources that cite the California Statutes. There is not even a common citation style. (No one really knows about them.) It is not categorized yet because the documentation page has not yet been created. But I think the strongest point is that they represent the 90% of the law for 12% of Americans. A uniform citation method is needed, which will provide for future web and interwiki links as they become available. Int21h (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, your argument is invalid. (See California State Assembly. "Second Session of the Legislature". Second Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 1., ie. California State Assembly. "Second Session of the Legislature". Second Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 1 p. 9.). Int21h (talk) 08:30, 14 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:Cape Cod Central Railroad Line

[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.
Template:Cape Cod Central Railroad Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route template, I posted notification on related talk page Bulwersator (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go place it later today. I forgot that I never placed it anywhere. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn, as template is useful Bulwersator (talk) 23:02, 9 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:Cape Metrorail Southern Area

[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 deletion per author's approval (G7). Non-admin closure. De728631 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cape Metrorail Southern Area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused route template Bulwersator (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as the creator, I have no objection to deletion as this template has been replaced by {{Simon's Town Line}} and {{Cape Flats Line}}. I would note, though, that in general "unused" is not a sufficient reason for deletion unless the "has no likelihood of being used" condition is also met. - htonl (talk) 22:53, 9 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:1975 All-Pro Team

[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.
Template:1975 All-Pro Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I apologize, see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#All_Pro_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as template is now used Bulwersator (talk) 08:19, 11 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:1974 All-Pro Team

[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.
Template:1974 All-Pro Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I apologize, see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#All_Pro_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as template is now used Bulwersator (talk) 08:19, 11 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:1973 All-Pro Team

[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.
Template:1973 All-Pro Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I apologize, see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#All_Pro_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 1973 and will do the others this week.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as template is now used Bulwersator (talk) 08:19, 11 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:North American Indigenous visual artists

[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North American Indigenous visual artists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is redundant, not used either appropriately or intuitively, and should be deleted. This is a catnav template that is only being placed on BIO articles. For example, an (exemplar) Cherokee beadworker would have this template on his or her page, and it's simply a set of cats for visual artists divided by tribes and artistic mediums that do not have a connection to the subject of the article outside of the subject's tribe or artistic medium. The subject should already be in relevant tribal and art categories anyway per CATEGORY.MSJapan (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Native American art is a major artistic category in the American Southwest. This is a useful template for those interested in the topic. The Native American artistic community is also much more tightly knit than the nominator suggests, with a number of Indian country-based annual shows and awards. Many of the living subjects, despite belonging to different tribes, probably know each other and interact at topical shows several times a year. Many collectors are interested in a broad range of native art, not specializing in a particular tribe or particular medium. Yworo (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh, my bad. Clearly her titles mean she has to be right. She clearly must have gotten the position based solely on this template, too, right? Note the sarcasm. I am concerned here about the content, not the contributor. Just because she knows the topic (which seems to be your insinuation, thus the TfD is unwarranted) doesn't mean the template's implementation is correct. MSJapan (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just how I thought you'd respond. I can't help but notice that your initial nomination does not cite any relevant policies or guidelines. It comes off no stronger than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Care to point our the relevant portions of the policies or guidelines you are basing your deletion proposal on? Without that, it both hard to judge precisely what policies or guidelines you think this template violates and even harder to conceive ways to remedy the template. Yworo (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is being used in many articles and serves as a valuable tool for users interested in exploring Indigenous North American art. I'm really not sure why this needs to be deleted. I created it to better organize content related to these individuals and art forms and to encourage people to not only help to categorize, but hopefully allow those reading the articles to explore further mediums and artists. I encourage people to please use this template in other articles where it is appropriate, not just biographies, of course. SarahStierch (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change all the links to non-category links or delete. Reproducing the category hierarchy in a template is totally redundant. All the links should be changed to article-space links. Most of them will probably be redlinks, but that's fine. Kaldari (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Kaldari, navigation templates are for navigation between related articles, not for jumping to categories (WP:CLN). However there would be nothing left of the template if we removed all the category entries because apparently there's not a single original article that treats one of those groups of artists as such, e.g. Native American beadmakers or List of Maya painters. And making lists out of the categories would be redundant either. De728631 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful and valuable tool...Modernist (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. After realizing that the template is filled with categories - makes no sense as a useful template - needs to be either re-made or deleted...Modernist (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the additions of relevant articles - I changed back to keep...Modernist (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - adding significant articles to the template creates a useful navigational tool, and an important and valuable central focus for those articles. I'd like to see the categories removed and have the articles remain. I'll rethink my preference once again...Modernist (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Native artists are significant and editors need this. It could be renamed something less clunky, though I don't know what (all alternatives I can think of would exclude someone that should not be excluded) but it is worth keeping. Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about significance of individual artists or certain genres. The only question is: is this really needed if we have a categories bar on each article? It's not because in its present form the template is totally redundant. I like the overall idea and structure but we should have head articles dealing with either a specific art form in its American Indigenous context or at least we need some proper lists of artists to link to. And such lists need to be a bit more than just a reflection of the related category. De728631 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template only replicates categories (the categories themselves are quite useful and easily accessed). Several lists documenting Native artists by genre already exist (e.g. List of Native American artists, List of indigenous artists of the Americas, and List of Native American artists from Oklahoma); each biography article could link to these in the "see also" section. Native American art and artists are significant, and our community is very tightly-knit, but that's not immediately relevant to the discussion. Creating a new template based on articles (e.g. Native American jewelry, Indigenous ceramics of the Americas, etc.), as opposed to categories might be useful. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • Strong keep. I find the category useful as it can indeed provide links to various areas of interest which might not be obvious to the non-initiate. In recent months, there has been a renewed interest in the field and it will not be long before a top-down article covers the specific area. Indeed, it should not be difficult to use Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas as a starting point here. - Ipigott (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Precisely, the categories are useful; however, the discussion is about the template. It's been a while since I've closely examined this template, but there are major conceptual problems with the classifications listed in the category; many overlap and gaps are left. Mayan people are predominantly (though not completely, of course) indigenous peoples in Mexico. Many indigenous peoples in Mexico are Mestizo; however, this term is used throughout Latin America and not limited to North America (right now though Category:Mestizo painters is underpopulated). "American Indian" here is used to mean American Indian people in the United States; however, the categories all links to "Native American." Many Alaskan Natives are neither American Indian or Inuit– including Cupik, Iñupiat, Aleut (e.g. John Hoover (artist)), or Alutiiq/Yupik, (e.g. Alvin Eli Amason). There are reasons why the major article covering indigenous American art's scope is both North and South America; an article covering only Canadian, Greenlandic, United States, and Mexican (and non-Mexican Mayan) indigenous art would be arbitrary. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
      • Comment, fixable problems with a template are not grounds for deletion. I've added two sections to the template linking overview articles and list articles, so the template is no longer simply redundant with the category system. The template should be kept and improved. Yworo (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in chipping in to help.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:13, 13 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:Children Collide

[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Children Collide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles in addition to main--the two albums will be interlinked by their infoboxes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 9 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:NoCommons

[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 9 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:User article ban arb

[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User article ban arb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 9 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:Google+

[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. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Google+ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is designed to bring you to a random list of pictures, videos ect.. by the person in-general --> to copyrighted material - the template is not designed to link to a persons official page - violates WP:ELNEVER, and WP:LINKSTOAVOID - say we nip this in the butt before it gets out of control. Moxy (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, creator of template immediately spammed it into as many of the 4,044 articles containing the {{Twitter}} template as he could before getting caught at it. Yworo (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not correct. My contributions show that I added the template to about 80 articles today. I don't know why this user persists in making things up, but the above incorrect observation was pointed out to him at a different page prior to the above edit (so it's mystifying why he would repeat the incorrect assertion here). There is no question of "being caught at it" (another pejorative way of assessing the situation). I'm an unpaid volunteer trying my best to improve the experience for WP's readers. I worked hard today to increase consistency in formatting a URL—that's all (and I've added other URL-formatting templates to WP in the past—without all this drama). GFHandel ♬  10:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: can only be used as a vehicle for adding inappropriate external links per wp:ELNO #10. - DVdm (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator). The above description is unnecessarily pejorative (random?) and fails to present a balanced view of the template's purpose.
    • The {{Google+}} template provides similar functionality to templates like {{Twitter}} and {{Facebook}}—which are well-accepted at WP (for example there are over 4,000 uses of {{Twitter}}).
    • Such templates provide consistent formatting of URLs and allow searches such as "what links here" to be performed.
    • The {{Google+}} template is a purely formatting mechanism and is therefore not inherently "evil" in itself. If we are permitting links to https://plus.google.com at WP (and we are), then it makes sense to provide editors with the ability to format those links easily and consistently.
    • The template's use is understandably limited at the moment because it was only created about twelve hours ago (but I suppose all templates have to start somewhere).
    • I only created the template today, but I'm sure that I can add extra syntax to the template's code (or variants on the template) so that it is useful in other instances where a link to Google+ is needed (e.g. in references).
    • Deleting this template but keeping other social networking templates such as {{Facebook}} and {{Twitter}} smacks of bias on the part of Wikipedia.
    • I don't follow the "copyright" argument given above since I would suggest that every template that leads to an external URL (and WP has hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them) leads to copyright material. Are we now proposing that we delete all templates that resolve to a URL leading to a site containing copyright material?
    • I added the {{Google+}} template to about 80 articles today, and apart from the over-reaction by one user, there have been no other complaints regarding its use.
GFHandel ♬  10:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you mean there are over 3,000 misuses of the {{Twitter}} template. Yworo (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a debate for another page. But we can now take it that you believe that there are about 1,000 (4,044 - 3,000) instances of the Twitter template that are not misuses. Okay, good. So that means that there will eventually be many cases where there will be beneficial uses of this template (since they are fairly similar in design, function, and intent). Thanks. GFHandel ♬  10:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF.Moxy (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet
Actually - that debate would work just fine on this page as the reasoning both for and against in both instances are pretty much the same. Obviously the 3000 was a typo and was meant to be 4000. As the reasoning of the template is flawed and violated policy in the first place - all applications of it are mis-use. Yooperkawi (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Care to comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srobak? GFHandel ♬  08:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should be trying to avoid links to copyright violations not promote them . These links may be exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. Moxy (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Google+ is a copyright violation because why exactly? Anomie⚔ 17:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
??? They are links to blog type pages were people post anything they like so things like copyrighted videos, pictures, ect. Plus many of the links go nowhere in reality like this. Thus the links are simply promoting/directing our readers for registration of the site. As per WP:ELNO I simply dont see a benefit here at all to Wikipedia. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" should not be used.Moxy (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided reasons why content some people (most likely not the people we would be using this template for) put on Google+ may be a copyright violation. You have not at all supported your assertion that everything on Google+ is a copyright violation. As for the quote, since Wikipedia will not contain the person's social networking profile, the Google+ page certainly would provide a resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. I'd have thought that was blindingly obvious. Anomie⚔ 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes links like this are very usefull. We should make sure we link them all.Moxy (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's meant to be an argument then it's really poor. We're not even talking about linking them "all", just that there's plenty of cases where linking to G+ is justified. Especially since people really tend to utilize the links section in their profile and link to their various official profiles, so if we just link to G+ from here then it'll be sufficient. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again confusion: you are mixing the argument about the appropriateness of links with the ability to format appropriate links. Please do not inject instances of the former here because this template is about the latter. Whether a link is appropriate is a matter for policy, local consensus, etc. and I make no comment on that process (a process which is the same whether or not a template is used). My aim is to help the editing and reading experience by providing a template for links the community deem appropriate. GFHandel ♬  20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is you who are confused about what this is about. This is not about formatting links. It is about whether we should have a specific template that happens to do so, or whether that template should be deleted. What the template actually does is to a great extent immaterial to this discussion. Yworo (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
!vote by now-blocked sock puppet; plus subsequent discussion
  • Delete. Templates like this and Twitter violate the very spirit of WP:ELNO and WP:NOT, and more often than not links to unofficial and dynamic content. As such the links themselves have no encyclopedic purpose or value. In articles in which there is a link to an official web page, there is certainly no need for such clutter. Yooperkawi (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is disturbing. Please note that User:Yooperkawi is an account created today. As I write this, Yooperkawi has made twelve edits, of which five are related to the removal of a template. I don't care how anyone dresses it up, but it's obvious that this account was created specifically by an involved user in an attempt to lend weight to this debate. Is this something an admin could please have a look at? Thanks. GFHandel ♬  18:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "06:29, January 7, 2012 Yooperkawi (talk | contribs) new user account" - that's not today. Account creation has nothing to do with your template... but yes this did get my attention through the twitter template issue. Yooperkawi (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be more disturbing if your accusation was true. My first revert of your addition of a Google+ template was at 03:51, 9 January 2012, as that was the first article you hit that was on my watchlist. The user in question was created not today, but rather more than a day and a half earlier at 12:29, 7 January 2012. If this is intended to suggest that I am using a sockpuppet, I never have and never will. Yworo (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm pleased to hear it, and I didn't suggest it was you. What I am suggesting is that the Yooperkawi account was created very recently and there's no way that a newbie can start with concepts of arguing the points about the deletion of a template (let alone understand the nuances of WP:ELNO and WP:NOT). Let's be clear about the editing pattern: Yooperkawi 9th edit was here (15 hours and 50 minutes after their first edit ever at WP), and followed four Keep comments. To me, and to anyone who has edited for a while at WP, what is going on with the Yooperkawi account here is transparent. GFHandel ♬  19:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe, but they may have been an experienced IP-only editor who finally decided to get an account. They don't appear (to me) to be a single-purpose account, so unless you have a suggestion as to a previous username, you can't even file a sock puppet investigation, as the checkusers won't go fishing... Yworo (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's now worth, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srobak. I stuck all of the above, and feel sorry for all the editors who wasted time addressing this post. Interesting how some editors will sink to the bottom to try and get a certain outcome. GFHandel ♬  08:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GFHandel, you have a conflict of interest here as the creator of the template. You should not be striking out anyone's comments, especially the comments of editors other than the sock. The matter has been brought to the attention of the closing administrator, that's all that needs to be done. If you feel that the sockpuppet's comments should be struck, take the matter to an admin and let the admin decide if it is justified and execute the striking. Yworo (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, and thanks for commenting. Your comment makes it appear that you have nothing against this particular template, rather that you are against any template that formats URLs. Certainly you have not presented any point supporting the removal of this template. FYI, URL-formatting templates are very widely used at WP, and make it easier for both editors (a simple syntax) and readers (consistent and simple presentation of a link). Without URL-formatting templates, we end up with an enormous variation of URLs (and link text) in articles. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  18:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many editors mistake the existence of a template as an official dispensation to include the link against WP:EL. This is precisely what has happened with the Facebook, MySpace and Twitter templates, where probably more than 90% of the uses are either as unreliable sources or as external links where the subject has a more robust official web presence. I do not believe any of these templates should exist to encourage the addition of these links without a bot which removes them from the external links section of any article also containing an {{official website}} template. In particular, Twitter will almost never meet the requirement that external links "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Yworo (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe all the templates in Category:Templates for linking to a social networking site should cary a disclaimer similar to the one at Template:Facebook. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd definitely agree with that, even though many editors don't bother to read such disclaimers or even the template instructions. They just see the template used elsewhere and copy it. On occasion I even run across instances where they don't even bother to change the ID, so point at the wrong person's networking page. Yworo (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just updated the {{Google+}} template to accept a third parameter called "page". You can read all about it in the documentation, but briefly: the page parameter specifies the destination sub-page at Google+. Valid values for the new name parameter are: posts, about, photos, videos, and plusones; however if nothing is supplied for the parameter it defaults to about (which is a biography page for the subject at Google+). In this form, the template is as valid as a link to biographical information as any of the myriad of other biographical-type template linkers found at WP. Hopefully this will allay the fears of some here because in its default usage, it will not link "to a random list of pictures, videos ect.. by the person". The new parameter now means that the template can be used in reference citations—where it cuts down on syntax for in-line citations (and of course offers the usual standardization of link URL). Enjoy. GFHandel ♬  20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, except that self-published sources are rarely acceptable as reference citations, an independent third-party citation is almost always preferred. This just compounds the problem, in my opinion. Yworo (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Rarely"? Okay, so that means that they can appear. Excellent. Now, please try to understand that this template is about providing a mechanism for consistent and simplified URL links for our readers (and about allowing easier data entry of URL-resolving information for our editors). This is not the venue for discussing whether links to Twitter, Facebook, Google+, etc. should appear at WP; rather, we are discussing how they appear. This template is simply offering functionality provided by many similar templates. My intention is not to tell people where a Google+ link can be used (although I obviously have opinions on the matter); rather I'm telling people that there is now an elegant option for how a Google+ link can be used. Can we move on yet? GFHandel ♬  22:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{Twitter}} and {{Facebook}} our some of the most undesirable links we have - thus a very bad comparison. Exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other internet presence. Pls see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites a essay that explains most of the problems with these type of links/templates.Moxy (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the confusion. {{Twitter}} and {{Facebook}} are not links; they are mechanisms for coding, formatting, and presenting links (be they in the "External links" section, or in other places such as citations). This is not the appropriate venue for discussing the appropriateness of the underlying links. I trust that the closing admin will take the distinction into account (and soon). GFHandel ♬  23:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to prevent what has happened with {{Twitter}} and {{Facebook}} templates happening with this one ..spammed all over without regard for the content they link to. We should not encourage links to sites of this nature at all (As per our MOS on the matter) let alone make a template for easy of use that may imply to our readers is a great link that is the norm.Moxy (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're aware that /Perennial websites is a non-binding essay, right, Moxy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's current status is that it is an essay which has been proposed to promoted to a guideline. It also does not say anything that is not already clearly stated in WP:EL. Yworo (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the current policy that we accept links to social networking websites in certain circumstances, so there's no reason why we cannot format these links consistently. MitchellDuce (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keeps above; G+ is relatively new as a social networking site, but it's very likely that we will have or indeed already do have a mentionable number of subjects that don't have official websites but use G+ as the center of their online identity, indeed it gives a better overview than a Twitter page if the subject has a Twitter too (and IMHO G+ is superior to facebook). So, keep for the same reasons we have the Twitter and other templates, G+ is in no way less important than those. Using the template properly and avoiding linking to fake profiles is a different issue, an issue that is also shared by the other SN templates. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Per nom and WP:LINKFARM. While some external links are permitted in articles, linking is not mandatory, nor do they rarely add encyclopedic value. These types of links already have Community Agreed Guidelines and Project Wide Consensus that they are to be "avoided", therefore linking to these sites within a template is a direct violation of multiple content guidelines including WP:NOT. Wikipedia's established consensus cannot be overturned through a TFD discussion. Clearly there are certain things that Wikipedia is not, spamlink templates containing links to be avoided are one of those.--Hu12 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • BS "Avoided" does not mean "always removed on sight", or they would be blacklisted. The guideline you link itself lists exceptions to the rule you cite. Anomie⚔ 15:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ignoratio elenchi. There may be circumstances/exceptions where some such links might be included, however an argument based on those very rare instances DO NOT justify nor mandate the inclusion of a project-wide mass link-spamming template, particularly when the links contained are not only controversial and unencyclopedic, but go against long term community established consensus. The template simply does not conform with accepted policy.--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, your argument is ignoratio elenchi Nor does it justify deletion, much less speedy deletion. Anomie⚔ 17:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • BS. Your arguments stated premise; """Avoided" does not mean always removed on sight", or they would be blacklisted" is clearly an "irrelevant conclusion" and is neither valid or an attempt to address the template in question. Furthermore, community agreed consensus based in the policies(WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOT), DO support exclusion of a template of this nature. Arguments of "exceptions" does not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy, nor can it justify the inclusion of a "project-wide mass link-spamming template". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so a template that violates multiple content guidelines does not belong in an encyclopedia and is excluded.--Hu12 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is evidently a bigger issue behind this and I don't think a single template's deletion discussion is the appropriate place to discuss this. The concerns given with the delete votes are relevant to all of the SN templates (there aren't that many, but more than a handful), and should be discussed from a bigger perspective. (And I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Using a template makes an external link appear "official" (approved by the Wikipedia community), and on that basis, Google+ external links could be added to any article that mentions something described at the external link. There is no reason for a template to exist: simply add those external links which satisfy WP:EL without embellishment. There are lots of organizations that have multiple external links, and wrapping each in a template would result in zero benefit, yet result in more spam that is harder to resist. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but they look as "official" as the template syntax is made to make them look. They are approved by the Wikipedia community if they appear in the article. Other people around here have already indicated (and acted to make sure) that the links shouldn't appear against the guidelines for the "External links" section. Don't understand the point about "organizations that have multiple external links" because this and other templates cater for different link syntax; and as explained above, there is benefit: searchability, consistent link format for the reader, less clutter than a full URL, easier entry of template parameters, shorter citation syntax (to name but five). GFHandel ♬  03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • When an editor adds a template to an article, there are quite a number of other editors who won't question it because templates are not their thing, and it "must be ok" because there is a template which does something—that gives templated external links a fake authority. If templates were as wonderful as described above, all external links would be added with at least a generic template (like {{Official}}). However, an external link does not need or warrant a template. Providing convenience links at the encyclopedia that anyone can spam edit is not Wikipedia's role, and all external links (with some rare exceptions) should be a normal link that has the same apparent importance as every other external link. By approving a template, the community is saying that it is valid to use that template at every available opportunity. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I'm just not that pessimistic—preferring to believe that there is no time limit at WP, and that if a mistake is made, it will be found and corrected (eventually). I believe the situation to be the exact reverse to how you describe things in your last sentence. GFHandel ♬  06:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's editors inserting inappropriate ELs every hour, I'm sure; the fact that there exists a template won't make it worse on a mention-worthy scale and will in fact make it easier to track. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Among other things-- per Moxy above (22:40)
Comment; A template was created to simplify adding links that are almost always, and I state this because I can not know all --if any-- exceptions, against policy. I do know that, any possible exceptions notwithstanding, Google+ fails policies and guidelines to be added as a link or an external link. Google+ is covered under at least WP:ELNO#10. The point is WHY create a template to make it easier to use links that are almost always going to be against policy and consensus? This goes for "Category:Templates for linking to a social networking site" and https://plus.google.com also.
I have not looked but WHY (?) was the template added to 80 articles? I am not concerned if there are other articles that may have slipped by. Was the articles the template was added to checked to see if the links (Google+) were in violation? Probably not! I am trying to work on some articles so PLEASE don't give me 4000+ links, that I have to look at to consider for deletion, for being against policies and guidelines as well as consensus. Any use of a site that is certainly included in said policies and guidelines can be deleted. At this point any exceptions sought for inclusion of these sites would be according to WP:BURDEN. This would be a case by case basis so a "template" to simplify or aid in "functionality" to me is really moot.
If I have missed something now would be the time to explain it to me otherwise I can not possibly imagine why this template would ever be needed. If a link or external link is deleted, especially with an appropriate edit summary, then reinserting the link, without discussions, is already against policy and could be seen as edit warring. Also, Why is there almost always a deemed timeline when that is simply not how Wikipedia operates. Any editors involved in this discussion should not be continuing with adding the template or deleting the template until this discussion is closed, therefore; the (and soon) in, "I trust that the closing admin will take the distinction into account (and soon) is unwarranted.
The discussion of use of a template, and the "appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of any underlying links", that would be used in said template, is directly related to the template discussion and I am sure any admin will see that. The above reasoning, "...a purely formatting mechanism and is therefore not inherently "evil" in itself. If we are permitting links to https://plus.google.com", depends. If a "formatting mechanism" is used to promote ease of use of of site against policy then the mechanism is inherently "evil". If each site added to a template is not checked then I, and probably a consensus, would not want a template to aid in searches. An "elegant option" to aid, promote, or assist an ineligible link would be simply an "elegant wrong". While the idea of a template has merit (aid to editors) this application does not. Otr500 (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you seriously questioning whether we'll EVER EVER in any article have cause to link to the subject's G+ page or profile? I'm becoming increasingly sure there's plenty of such subjects, and even more sure that, where possible, Facebook and Twitter links should be replaced with G+ links. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I'm going through some articles, I'm finding that G+ tends to be superior to Twitter and Facebook links since those are usually linked to from G+. There's plenty of articles where linking to G+ in the EL section is completely justified. Having templates for links to pages on certain sites has also already been explained here and elsewhere. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It was added to about 80 articles because there were about 100 existing uses of the "plus.google.com" URL in WP articles. Using the template makes it trivial for other people to find the links (the importance of which is seemingly lost on the editors who are against the inclusion of such social-networking links). I was doing the hard yards to convert the existing instances of the URL into the template format (note that my aim was not to add content—merely to convert content).
Even under the existing policy/guidelines there are clear cases where it would be okay to use {{Google+}}. For example if a person only has a relevant Google+ page, but no Official website link (e.g. Sergey Brin). Another valid use of the template would be to succinctly format Google+ links for use in references (something that has happened).
I have not added an instance of the template since this discussion opened, but unfortunately others have deleted them, and continue to delete them (and I agree with you that that's not very fair).
GFHandel ♬  04:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's already easy to find the links using the external links search. We don't need a template for that. Yworo (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G+ posts can sometimes be used as references just as Twitter statuses can; using the template would help keep track of where it's used as an external link. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Special:LinkSearch is used to track external links. A template is not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it does, that page is literally showing all pages where there's a link to any G+ page, including userpages and others outside articlespace, and including instances where the link is used as a reference and not in the EL section. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have noticed you were replying to a post that mentioned LinkSearch. I'm not recommending the following, but as a matter of interest, it is possible to specify the namespace using the API: google+ in articles. At any rate, the existence of this template depends on the arguments regarding WP:EL and it is not relevant that "what links here" may be useful (it it's a big deal, we need to get LinkSearch enhanced). Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GFHandel, For future reference you could have reverted any deletions with an edit summary that there is a current discussion on-going and leave a comment on their talk page. I realize you have created a template that
There seems to be a leaning for some that it is generally alright to use Facebook, twitter, and G+ for references or external links. The policy, that is in force by consensus, as well as Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites (again by consensus), is that there are exceptions to the rule (if you will) so adding any of these sites would be just that. If an editor deletes a link in this situation it would fall on the editor wishing to restore the link, per WP:BURDEN to justify use. Have you checked any of the 80 applications of the template to see if the links violate policy? If you have not then you have created a process to just aid in the adding of improper links.
A template was created for ease of use to editors and I am reading that it can be used to more easily track references. I am thinking that this might be a good thing as I might have 4000+ articles to review (I perform external link checks) to verify if there are gross violations of policy. I will assure any editor that I can probably defend policy against most (IF NOT ALL) uses of G+ as a reference ("G+ posts can sometimes be used as references") as sometimes would still be an exception. I will start a review to assess how widespread this problem is. I have not suggested that we will not "EVER EVER in any article have cause to link to the subject's G+ page or profile", I am stating that we do not need to use a template that will lend credibility to use inappropriate links. That is my issue. The template might be a good idea but the use of the above listed sites are, by consensus, exceptions and a push (intended or not) to make it seem alright to add more inappropriate links is not a help but a hindrance. Otr500 (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These types of links already have Community Agreed Guidelines and Project Wide Consensus that they are to be "avoided", therefore linking to these sites within a template is unacceptable and a direct violation of multiple established guidelines including WP:NOT. Wikipedia's established consensus on linking cannot be overturned through a TFD discussion. This Template simply does not comply with policy. --Hu12 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • BS "Avoided" does not mean "always removed on sight", or they would be blacklisted. The guideline you link itself lists exceptions to the rule you cite. Anomie⚔ 15:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ignoratio elenchi. There may be circumstances/exceptions where some such links might be included, however an argument based on those very rare instances DO NOT justify nor mandate the inclusion of a project-wide mass link-spamming template, particularly when the links contained are not only controversial and unencyclopedic, but go against long term community established consensus. The template simply does not conform with accepted policy.--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, your argument is ignoratio elenchi Nor does it justify deletion, much less speedy deletion. Anomie⚔ 17:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • BS. Your arguments stated premise; """Avoided" does not mean always removed on sight", or they would be blacklisted" is clearly an "irrelevant conclusion" and is neither valid or an attempt to address the template in question. Furthermore, community agreed consensus based in the policies(WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOT), DO support exclusion of a template of this nature. Arguments of "exceptions" does not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy, nor can it justify the inclusion of a "project-wide mass link-spamming template". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so a template that violates multiple content guidelines does not belong in an encyclopedia and is excluded.--Hu12 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it suggests that Google+ links are encouraged Bulwersator (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the template does no such thing; quite the reverse in fact (if you read the documentation). This issue was addressed above when Jeraphine Gryphon added the {{warning}} template to help editors be aware of proper use. The more I think about your point, the less I understand it because (like all information) Wikipedia does encourage the use of Google+ links—in accordance with rules/consensus/policy/etc., and the discussion above has identified occasions when it is appropriate to use Google+ links. in this aspect, the template is no different than other well-accepted templates such as {{Facebook}}, {{Twitter}}, {{MySpace}}, {{Flickr}}, {{YouTube}}, {{Tumblr}}, etc. The {{Google+}} template merely aids readability, display, and formatting on the occasions when it is appropriate to use Google+ links.
I do hope you are not !voting because of the worry that inexperienced editors may copy appropriate usage and paste into inappropriate situations? If you are, please note that they are going to do that even if no {{Google+}} template is present (e.g. by copying the [https://plus.google.com/109813896768294978296/about Sergey Brin] on [[Google Plus]] URL syntax). If you are worried about this, then please remember that there is no time limit at WP, and inappropriate usage will be discovered and removed (as is the case for countless other housekeeping activities that are constantly occurring at WP). Please also remember that we are expected to AGF in other editors' editing activities—and therefore not adopt a starting point assuming that other editors will get it wrong.
GFHandel ♬  19:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We also need a bit of consistency. If there already are such templates for Facebook and Twitter, then I cannot see any good reason not to have a similar template for google+. Anything else becomes double standards. So either keep, or delete all (including facebook and twitter and...). Personally I think WP would be better without any external links section, because it is always an endless source of contention and linkspam. It's easy enough to find websites and pages about any person or topic through standard search engines. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. Moxy (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Arguments saying other similar templates exist ignore that those should be deleted as well. Should not be encouraging links that fail WP:EL rules. In the rare cases where a link to a social media site is the only official site those can be easily added by hand. This is similar to sites being added to blacklist to prevent there being added but still allowing them to be added by hand on the once in a million occasions where they might be useful. DreamGuy (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We have discussions by GFHandel of, "Please also remember that we are expected to AGF in other editors' editing activities—and therefore not adopt a starting point assuming that other editors will get it wrong." and I find that very strange. I looked at some of the articles with the links and templates added and am astounded. I added a comment at Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites#Social networking sites change but will recap for comments and maybe wonderment. I found that out of 34 articles where the 1)- Google template was added by GFHandel 15 had multiple templates of 2)- YouTube, 3)- Facebook, and 4)- Twitter for a total of 39 external links recently added to 15 articles:
I do not feel that being a good editor is assuming bad faith but I guess it makes a good argument to throw it out there. I also see why we do not need any more templates. It not only makes it easy to track, easy use, easy to be misused by new editors, but there is clear evidence that it can be misused by someone that knows what they are doing. Someone creates a template and adds it to sites where it is not needed, then just for the fun of it (I guess) throws in more for a total of 39 external links in 15 articles. Yes I know I said that but I want to make sure it is not overlooked. Memphisto reverted some that were deleted by Yworo citing Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL#Official links policy. More than once multiple templates were restored that were not official websites. I don't suppose this editor would delete the ones restored by mistake because they were deleted according to consensus?
With a new parameter added to the template it can now be used for citations and I have been informed that Google+ is being used as a citation. We can just keep going until there is a template for every link possible, or not. I now feel that Google+, facebook, twitter, and others that do have consensus against use and should not have a template for an easy way to spam Wikipedia.
What is really mind boggling is that the majority of the 39 templates placed have been done so against guidelines and consensus and need deleting. This problem seems to me to be far more in-depth than just templates. I am more convinced Wikipedia does not need this template. Otr500 (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)- All this is a bit off topic but... A bit of a correction here. I see that GFHande did not actually add all thoses links, GFHande simply converted them to template format, links were already there. Perhaps in the future GFHande could "minimize the number of links" while doing this conversion as per WP:ELOFFICIAL that says "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites" and WP:LINKFARM that says "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links".Moxy (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I'm not sure what Otr500 hopes to gain by copying this "analysis" from where we were discussing it? Suffice to say that it doesn't add anything further to this debate. Anyhow, whatever the reason, I addressed the above (flawed) analysis at the proper location. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  08:27, 15 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:StarCraft article

[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StarCraft article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not employed usefully, largely duplicated by the StarCraft task force of Template:WikiProject Video games. Could be a speedy I think, but wasn't sure. Izno (talk) 08:53, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_9&oldid=1138696095"