Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 5

< January 4	January 6 >

January 5

Template:SADR topics

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SADR topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:Western Sahara topics Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the template about SADR exists for 3 years already; that's too late to ask to delete it for duplicity.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears they're both transcluded on the same articles and that {{Western Sahara topics}} is more comprehensive. And to Greyshark09, it's never too late. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is never too late to propose deletion (which is the case here), but the success rate for such deletions is low.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a consensus for separate articles of the Western Sahara and the SADR, I think that the template for SADR has a sense, only needs to be added articles (the President, the Parliament and many other articles which relate directly to SADR). Jan CZ (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what the template lists. It just lists a few Western Sahara articles. There are very few separate WS/Sadr articles, as far as I know just Flag of Western Sahara/Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Coat of arms of Western Sahara/Flag of Western Sahara. The WS topics template covers SADR topics. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are articles as constitution, president, parlament, elections, etc. It is possible to add it to template. Keep per WP:DEL-REASON: Improvement is preferable to deletion of page. Jan CZ (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we don't have separate Category:Country and territory topics templates for government and other topics. I put your list on the WS template. No need for a separate template dealing with the SADR government. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SADR is an independent geopolitical entity, recognized by numerous countries; even if not represented in the UN.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SADR is a partially recognized entity and this template should be associated to articles directly related to the SADR (not Western Sahara). I would also ask Emmette to not add the content of this template to {{Western Sahara topics}} as she did here before we get a consensus/decision. --Omar-toons (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't, At the time I made the WS edit the SADR template looked like this. It didn't contain that info about the SADR government. The SADR is a partially recognized country, but as shown by Talk:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic#Map, it's recognized as being simply an independent Western Sahara. The All pages with titles containing Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic articles are about the SADR government, and I still don't see a compelling reason to have separate template for the government. That goes against the precedent of every other Country and territory topics templates, they covers government and other topics in the same template. Having separate topic templates just harms the readers ability to navigate between articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The template has undergone a complete transformation sense I nominated it, but now instead of being a duplicate of {{Western Sahara topics}} it's a duplicate of {{Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic}}, and an improperly formed one because these Politics/government navboxes are supposed to be sidebars. My delete vote stands. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2013 (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:Robert Kiyosaki

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) 01:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Robert Kiyosaki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost all of the template is plain text (no links) and could be considered an advertisement for this author's books. The article (Robert Kiyosaki) seems like enough. Trialeditor (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not enough primary links per nom. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2013 (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:Instagram

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) 01:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I fail to see a need for a template for this, since it is very unlikely that we are going to be adding this to the EL section in articles. if it is kept, it should be restricted to uses outside of article space. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template about a social network, that is widely used. Surely, will be used in section "External links" in articles. PauloHenrique ^{Can talk} 13:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- can you provide an example of an appropriate use in a article? Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to link to Instagram like this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to social networking sites is generally discouraged. Exceptions can be made, but there's no compelling reason to make Instagram one of them. As such, we don't need a utility template to standardise such links. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2013 (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:Property tax rates in Massachusetts

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) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Property tax rates in Massachusetts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template consisting of outdated information. Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as out of date and somewhat trivial information. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD:T3. — ^Wylie_Coyote 14:54, 7 January 2013 (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:Southeastern Conference quarterback navbox

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) 00:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southeastern Conference quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are two pretty good reasons why this is a terrible idea for a template, and should be deleted.

1) It's a fluid list. Many schools change their starting quarterback multiple times over the course of the season. Who is the starter at any given point in the season isn't of that much import.
2) Half of the quarterbacks in this template don't have articles.

I am also nominating the following templates for deletion for the same reasons:

Template:Atlantic Coast Conference quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Big Ten Conference quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pacific-12 Conference quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In addition, I can find no precedent for such a template existing. The Pac-12, Big Ten, and Big 12 have no similar template; even the NFL (where all the QBs pass the specific notablity guidelines and therefore have articles) doesn't have this p b p 04:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The Pac-12 and Big Ten has one and so does the NFL.--Yankees10 04:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Templates are useful in my opinion--Yankees10 04:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the notability argument, only the NFL IMO could sustain such a template. The college ones should be deleted. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, somewhat reluctantly. As noted by the nom, the contents of the template often contain non-notable links and are very fluid. Moreover, since it only shows the current state of the conference quarterbacks, a template doesn't adequately captures what would make it really interesting, which is the various moments in time when several notable quarterbacks played against each other. Perhaps adding a table of starters in the various conference season articles (e.g., 2012 Pacific-12 Conference football season) would do a better job with this information. For example, it would be cool to go back and see that, for example, in the fifth week of the 2010 Pac-10 football season, five team starters would go on to be NFL starters (Note: that hasn't quite happened, I'm speculating somewhat to make the point.) --Esprqii (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note, 1) is refuted by the NFL equivalent and 2) is refuted: 10/14 SEC, 8/12 ACC, 10/12 BigTen, 7/12 Pac-10 with at least some of the missing player articles having notability. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an NFL one exists doesn't mean this one should. The bigger point is that there are any redlinks at all. Most templates don't have any p b p 14:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reluctantly. If I could point out Template:NFL starting quarterbacks navbox as a reason for keeping, then I would, but I can't. The navboxes for the college ones is very fluid, and most quarterbacks listed don't have pages either. Zappa O Mati 20:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every subject requires a navbox, and these navboxes fail at least three of the good navbox qualities identified by WP:NAVBOX:

"The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
"The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
"There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template."

There is no mention of other current starting quarterbacks from their respective conferences in the overwhelming majority of linked articles, and there is no stand-alone article or list whose primary subject is the starting quarterbacks in the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, or Pac-12. Moreover, between 17 percent and 42 percent of the links in each of these four navboxes are red links, thus violating yet another principle of good navboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2013 (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:Orphan placement discussion

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 discussion closed, so the bot can archive the page :) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This is not a deletion nomination. I would like to open a discussion (with more eyeballs than the template's talk page will get) about moving this template to the article talk page, like {{Reqphoto}}, etc. Being a WP:ORPHAN is not a serious issue. A large percentage of stubs are orphans for quite some time, and many technical, archaic and otherwise obscure topics, despite being clearly notable, will probably forever have no more than one to a handful of incoming links. There's nothing actually wrong with this. More to the point, there is no policy, or overwhelmingly supported, crucial sitewide guideline (think WP:RS as an example) that would lead to such a tag being considered an appropriate "in-your-face" label at the top of an article, demanding that the "problem" be rectified ASAP, and scaring readers into thinking there is something untrustworthy about the content. I have not come to this TfD decision rashly. I've been considering it for over 3 years. Today I saw {{Orphan}} slapped pointlessly, about a dozen times, at the top of short, sourced articles on various obscure domestic animal breeds from places like rural Africa and the far corners of the Carpathians (i.e., articles that are never likely to have many more incoming links than they already have now). This is not an isolated problem, a "just fix a few misuses" issue. This template is regularly and consistently applied, willy-nilly, by too many editors to virtually any and all articles with zero or only a few links coming to them, regardless of their content, topic or age. Enough is enough.

I would like to see the template modified, if necessary (it probably isn't), to work properly (no color stripe) on the article talk page, and most importantly change its template documentation to say that it goes on the talk page by default. and should not be put into the article unless there's a consensus on the article talk page that the lack of links is both an actual problem in that particular case and easily fixable in the short term. If an article is actually hard to find, putting a tag at the top of it saying it is hard to find is rather WP:POINTy, especially if it's a short stub, in which case the tag dominates the entire page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 03:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point on this and have also been unsure on this one. One of the big differences between reqphoto and orphan templates is however that image requests are thankfully added manually while most pages tagged as orphaned are via semi-automatic tools and bots. I think there are a number of different points to discuss here. Namely: should it be on the article or talk page; should it be in-your-face loud; should it be only added manually; and what are the criteria and classifications of an orphan page.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Even the most obscure articles ought to have at least one incoming link. If they don't, I'd say that's a problem on a par with a lack of wikilinks or unformatted references, and requires an equally prominent tag. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of the few nag-tags that motivates me to do something about since it's so easy to fix. In other words, it seems to be pretty useful. Burying it on the talk page, eh, probably won't be as effective. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article or talk page

I believe it should be on the article page. If it is on the talk page it will not be seen by most reader and probably only noticed by the few who are slowly working through the categories of orphaned pages. With reqphoto it is not so important to be on the article page as it should be obvious that there is not image on the page while for orphan I suspect not many people use the what links here tool.
Also for those marking pages it is difficult to write tools that read the article but edit the talk page.
A reader should be informed that is an orphaned page. To highlight that the contents should views sceptically, for no other reason that probably only one person has contributed real content to it.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be on the talk page. Tags are not badges of shame to "warn the reader". The problem of orphan status may be a problem entirely at the other articles. For example, we need to create an article at Splenosis, and it will likely be an instant orphan. Why? Because the pages that ought to have redlinks to it, like Accessory spleen, have been "cleaned up" in violation of our guidelines on redlinks. Permanent orphan status often means that you're looking at a new article or one on a very narrow subject, and again, there's nothing wrong with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, along with all of the maintenance tags, the orphan tags should remain in the article space. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

style

Agree it is a very loud big tag on a often small article page. I did propose a small version after someone else complained about this, but apparently this was against style policy.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that maintenance templates should again have a small rethink. The introduction of the multiple issues template was of course a good step forward although I think individual templates could be phased out and all issues be reported in one template box with the same style as per multiple issues. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

manual or automatic

One of the big problems is that there are many people busy adding this tag but only a few working to remove it. AutoWikiBrowser and a number of bots test for and add the Orphan template but there are no tools to assist with removing it.
Proposing that it is only added manually would reduce the issue you are discussing but really only hides the problem of orphaned pages.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that there was a bot that removed orphan tags from non-orphans, and if there isn't, then I'd support its creation. Automatic additions might be problematic (at least when the article is only a few weeks old, so people haven't had a chance to integrate it) but removals should be easy and automatic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bot removing the orphan tags but due to multiple reasons (i lost the code). I have just re written the bot and I am currently doing a first run on Category:Attempted de-orphan. Lets see how many we can weed out! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first run halfed the size of the category from 1440 to 704. The bot removed 736 orphan tags. See User:Addbot/log/orphan which I will keep updated. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good news. Some of the categories are so large at the moment it puts people of attempting to address them. Only thing an automatic method cannot check for, I assume, is a walled garden, It did de-tag a few of these. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just over 41 thousand orphan tags removed from articles! I am still waiting on the result from Feb09 (the biggest month) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

definition

The definition of what an orphan is has been changed from an article with only a few link to it to an article with only one link to it. There is now an option in the template for few if someone feels it is still important to have more links. I also added the option cat to identify articles probably will never have links to them but are in categories, for example plant sub-species, asteroids and New Zealand poets. I think it would be good to change the default of these classifications to display a small infobox.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

I may be in a minority here (I may not), but ~~WP:WEB~~ WP:BUILD is an important guideline and {{orphan}} helps to attract attention to such things. Are there many (any?) cases where an article really doesn't need any inbound links? Is it even part of our web in that case? "Move it to the talk page" is all well and good, but typically talk page banners of that sort are only for creative requests like images and not for things which should be a basic part of article creation and maintenance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:BUILD? DoctorKubla (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of articles that probably never will have links to them. 5vor12, Louisa Alice Baker, ACSF3, (229945) 1998 US8.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

#1 should be linked from the list in its see also section, if in fact it is notable enough to have an article at all; #2 should be linked from the articles of whatever notable publications she contributed to, if in fact she is notable enough to have an article at all; #3 could be linked from any of the various biological articles it references; #4 should be linked from the list in its see also section (which is actually a redlink at present), if in fact it is notable enough to have an article at all. if the argument for "orphaned articles are not a problem" is "we have people dumping tens of thousands of stub articles on us by running a script on some database somewhere", which would seem to cover three of those four articles, then the initial premise needs re-thought. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep using it the same way as always. Articles should always be linked from elsewhere, and by relegating this template to the talk page, we'd be reducing its visibility and making it less useful. Notable topics are related to other notable topics, and so down the road we will have related articles if we don't already. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2013 (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.