Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 23

< May 22	May 24 >

May 23

Template:A Wambach: Assist/pass received and penalty-kick

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) 01:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A Wambach: Assist/pass received and penalty-kick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:A Wambach: Goals categorized by type of match: display 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:A Wambach: Goals categorized by type of match: display 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:A Wambach: Goals scored against opponents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:List of i-goals by A Wambach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use templates which should be merged back with List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach. splitting the article into templates does not make it load any faster, nor does it reduce the size of the rendered article. Frietjes (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no need for so many non-notable templates related to one person. Giant Snowman 09:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The creation of templates and tables regarding Abby Wambach and several other football/soccer players is out of control. The association football project really needs to step up and exercise some control over the stats cruft that is being proliferated by a handful of editors. These articles are rapidly being converted into fan blogs and sports almanac stats sheets, not encyclopedia articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the silent majority of people who wish to maintain Wikipedia's integrity were a little less silent, it would be a whole lot easier to police the encyclopaedia. As it stands, WP:FOOTY is full of n00bs who think they can add whatever bullshit they like to pages about their favourite clubs and players, then they brand the established editors as vandals for trying to maintain a little order. Since we can't force anyone to contribute one way or the other, it would seem we just have to accept that Wikipedia is bound to go to the dogs in terms of its football content due to the sheer popularity of the sport attracting such chaotic editors. – Pee Jay 23:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fancruft, no reasonable encyclopaedic value The Banner talk 14:04, 31 May 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:Infobox men's college basketball team

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox men's college basketball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox women's college basketball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox men's college basketball team with Template:Infobox women's college basketball team.
the only difference between these two templates is (1) the NCAA/AIAW headings vs. NCAA and (2) the field |NCAAsecondround= instead of |NCAAroundof32=. you can view the diff here. hence, to keep things in sync, I propose merging them with a |women= to toggle the women specific headings. the merged template would be called {{infobox college basketball team}}, to match all other {{infobox college sport team}} templates. a merged template is in {{Infobox college basketball team}}, which would be history merged. to further confuse things, {{Infobox CBB Team}} is a redirect to the men's template. I just cleaned up about a dozen women's BB team articles which were using the men's template, along with a tennis team and a lacrosse team. this will solve the redirect issue, since the main template will be relatively gender independent. Frietjes (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Template:Infobox sports team -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I strongly support Frietjes' proposal to merge these two templates. There is nothing to distinguish men's college basketball from women's college basketball in terms of the key information that needs to be presented in an infobox: the team's parent university, conference affiliation, head coach, win-loss record, arena, team colors, etc. The only minor difference is the reference to the AIAW as the former governing body for women's college sports, and this can be handled as an option to be toggled within a merged template.

For the record, I also strongly oppose the merge proposed by IP user:65.94.76.126 immediately above; college sports programs are significantly different from a generic pro or club team, and should have a separate infobox that readily distinguishes college teams from others. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Agree with Frietjes and Dirtlawyer - differences between the two are minor and a single template would make editing these articles easier. Rikster2 (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support as an ardent college basketball editor. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge seems like a good idea.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I'm in favor of using the "NCAA Round of 32" as the parameter, since numbering rounds one/two/three etc. has become confusing since the move to a 68 team tournament.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:44, 29 May 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:Kuala Lumpur Dragons current roster

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) 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kuala Lumpur Dragons current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template contains Powerade Tigers current roster instead of the roster of Kuala Lumpur Dragons. I nominate this for deletion since 1) The team name has changed (it is now Westports Malaysia Dragons) and 2) I think it will be rather "silly" to merge it with the template mentioned above. Pits Confer Guests 14:58, 23 May 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:Jason Aldean No.1 Singles

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) 01:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jason Aldean No.1 Singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Jason Aldean; fancruft. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 6#Template:Keith Urban No.1 Single, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 18#Template:Trace Adkins Number 1 singles and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 18#Template:Kenny Chesney Number No. 1 singles. Eric444 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unneeded template Jason Aldean discography exists for a reason. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All of these have been created by the same author (first as User:Paultbackes and now User:Paulthomasbackes). He needs to be told/warned to stop creating such templates per prior consensus as this one was just created yesterday. Apparently, the message about each of these TfDs is not getting through to him. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:46, 23 May 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:Diff'rent Strokes

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) 02:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diff'rent Strokes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, links only 4 articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are 5 articles listed -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep five links is enough for a template.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently, about half of the links are spin-off shows. We could easily have instead a "spinoffs" header on the Diff'rent Strokes article, with a {{main}} pointing to the articles on the spinoffs. In fact, such a section currently exists. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, only three directly related articles are listed, with the rest as spin-offs. the directly related articles are already well connected. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 28 May 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:Doctor Who RG

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 to delete. Also, content issues should not be discussed at TfD. — Edokter (talk) — 12:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doctor Who RG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a template for linking to reviews on a website. Said website does not constitute a reliable source, ergo there is no need to link to it. Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there are any interesting reviews they can be done manually, but it's not that high profile it needs a template. Rankersbo (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:ELMAYBE: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.". I believe this falls under same, and should be retained. WCityMike (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, that's only a 'maybe'. WP:ELNO (the next section on that page) says not to include "most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" That would not appear to apply in this case. Bondegezou (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Actually the pages linked to by this template do not contain reviews, but rather much more detailed episode by episode plot descriptions than on the corresponding Wikipedia articles. I have been watching the Dr. Who TV shows since the beginning for the past several months, and have found this site to be actually much more reliable in it's plot descriptions than the necessarily condensed summaries in WIkipedia which make a noble but flawed attempt to summarize stories which span from 2 to 12 episodes which is almost impossible to do while following the Wikipedia guidelines for brevity. Quoting the Links to Avoid Section:

"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."

Since the referenced pages do indeed provide much more detailed summaries which are in fact more reliable than the heavily edited WP versions, they IMHO meat the critera of providing a unique resource beyond what a featured article on WP would provide. Rick (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree that it's a useful website and, you're right, this one provides synopses and notes, not reviews. My apologies. However, WP:ELNO is very clear not to include "most fansites ..."; and I don't see how this site passes WP:RS criteria either. It appears to me very suitable for a Dr Who-specific wiki, but I can't personally see how it's appropriate under Wikipedia policies. Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete the site linked fails WP:ELNO and so we should not give it a facade of acceptance that actually having a template denotes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 17 May 2013 (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) 00:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a good reference site with more detail than Wikipedia can give. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 05:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JonathanDP81 StuartDouglas (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These types of templates are for formatting links. We do not delete templates because we dislike the links. They are used for formatting purposes only. To remove external links, start a discussion at WP:ELN. Once the link is removed from Wikipedia, then the template can be removed as unused. Policies such as WP:ELNO and WP:RS are completely unrelated to templates. 64.40.54.83 (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why in the bloody world would we keep a template to format links that are never acceptable to use? utter nonsense and WP:BEANS -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:09, 31 May 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:OG review

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 to delete. Also, content issues should not be discussed at TfD. — Edokter (talk) — 12:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OG review (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a template for linking to reviews on a website. Said website does not constitute a reliable source, ergo there is no need to link to it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:ELMAYBE: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.". I believe this falls under same, and should be retained. WCityMike (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a slightly different case to the Doctor Who RG template I've also nominated for deletion. I would still note that WP:ELMAYBE is still only a 'maybe'. WP:ELNO says not to include "most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Now, Outpost Gallifrey as a website does have its own Wikipedia article and meets notability criteria. However, this template links to reviews archived at Outpost Gallifrey written by a variety of fans who are not, individually, "recognized authorities [...] [who] meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." (Actually, the template links to the WaybackMachine's archive of Outpost Gallifrey as the site no longer exists.) I also note that WP:ELMAYBE specifically excludes linking to professional reviews in the external links section, so I can't see how it can be used to support linking to fan reviews. Bondegezou (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this site is typically considered to be a valuable resource for its subject matter it's appropriate to templateise links to it for consistency. The appropriateness of the site in question should really be discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard rather than at TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My apologies, I should have been clearer in my initial nomination about this. This template is specifically used in External Links sections and its use there is (as far as I can see) always inappropriate, for the reasons I give in my previous comment above. That is a somewhat different issue to whether it is a reliable source or not. So I feel this TfD should continue, but I have now also started a discussion at RS/N on this and two other templates: see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Various_Dr_Who_fan_sites_.26_associated_templates.

I would also point out that whether "this site is typically considered to be a valuable resource for its subject matter" is not enough justification if what is "typically" done is in contradiction to policy (as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). Bondegezou (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Two_templates_for_ELs_to_Dr_Who_fan_sites as EL/N seemed more appropriate than RS/N. Probably should have begun there! Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the site linked to does not meet WP:EL guidelines and should not be given the veneer of "approved link" that having a template confers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:57, 17 May 2013 (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) 00:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These types of templates are for formatting links. We do not delete templates because we dislike the links. They are used for formatting purposes only. To remove external links, start a discussion at WP:ELN. Once the link is removed from Wikipedia, then the template can be removed as unused. Policies such as WP:ELNO and WP:RS are completely unrelated to templates. 64.40.54.83 (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No different to dozens of other Dr Who review sites on the net, but not even extant any longer. StuartDouglas (talk) 14:53, 28 May 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.