Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 August 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 15 August 17 >

August 16

[edit]

Template:Omega X, Template:NTX (group) and Template:ILY:1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No albums, no singles, no members with articles. No improvement to navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:12, 16 August 2022 (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).

Template:Rosalynn Carter series

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2022 August 23. ✗plicit 23:43, 23 August 2022 (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).

Template:Perfumerías Avenida roster

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use. Substitute on CB Avenida. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:03, 16 August 2022 (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).

Template:Club Deportivo Promete roster

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used on the wrong articles and no mainspace article for this template to be substituted on. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:03, 16 August 2022 (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).

Template:Casademont Zaragoza women's roster

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused roster list. Outdated as the main article, Basket Zaragoza has an up to date list as part of the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:03, 16 August 2022 (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).

Template:Boston Patriots Hall of Famers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused with only one link and redundant to Template:PatriotsHOF. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:03, 16 August 2022 (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).

Template:Cresta series

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 01:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no mainspace article for the topic. There is no Cresta series that I could find that matches with the games listed. Other than the similarity of the titles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:03, 16 August 2022 (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).

Template:Fearless Records

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two links outside of the main article. Fails NENAN. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2022 (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).

Template:Citation DLR 2013-15

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused citation template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2022 (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).

Template:Starship timeline

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timeline chart. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2022 (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).

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of web directories

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Izno (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per guidance at WP:CSC Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. So, this notice forbidding all redlinks is in complete violation of guidance. I found it by clicking on the edit button of List of web directories, but the transclusions link above doesn't show it links to anything. As a side note, the criteria listed on the talk page also points exactly to CSC #1 guidance which allows the redlinks provided they have citations... Huggums537 (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just remembered why I went for outright deletion, and not just a discussion about amending redlinks. It is because the template also calls for every entry in the list to have a Wikipedia article against guidance, and there is probably just too much to amend here. The only guidance that allows for just Wikipedia articles only is WP:LISTPEOPLE, and this list is not about people. Establishing a list based on "Wikipedia articles only" violates WP:SELFREF, WP:CIRCULAR, MOS:OVERLINK, or more like MOS:SEAOFBLUE and WP:Blue Sea with a sea of blue, plus is not encyclopedic since it doesn't allow other notable entries such as redlinks, redirects, or other plain text notable mentions. There was also no prior consensus for restricting the list to "just Wikipedia articles only". There is a big difference between some of the suggestions for a "notable list", and that of a "Wikipedia articles only". Huggums537 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or ammend to be compliant because I failed to mention that in my nomination. Huggums537 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list does appear to be prone to people spamming non-notable web directories, so the edit notice is helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the notice is helpful, but it isn't compliant with guidance. It either needs to be amended so it can be helpful in a way that is compliant, or deleted. Huggums537 (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One way it could be made compliant is to say something like, "non-notable redlinks/unlinked entries will be removed", but out right banning of them is illegal. Huggums537 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list receives a fair amount of spam, therefore the notice. -- Alexf(talk) 19:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexf I would be willing to withdraw nomination if you can amend template in a manner that makes it compliant similar as I described in above comment. Huggums537 (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Huggums537: A removal would be an invitation to spam. These lists attract them like flies. I stand by my comment. -- Alexf(talk)
    If it doesn't get removed we are still going to have the discussion about making it compliant, so we might as well just make it easier, and discuss making it compliant now. I would have discussed that first, but the thought didn't occur to me until we started this deletion discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion, if it closes as keep, will have established a consensus that this specific list should not contain red links. There's no need to "make [the edit notice] compliant" with some other guideline. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, and think it will only establish that it shouldn't be deleted. But, I guess that depends on what gets discussed, doesn't it? Huggums537 (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't think that an admin should be enabling consensus over-riding a compliant notice when there isn't any evidence whatsoever a compliant notice is any less of a deterrent or that that there was really any consensus for the uncompliant notice in the first place considering all the significant objections, and alternative solutions in the talk history as well as the continuous insertions of redlinks throughout the entire page history. Huggums537 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand it is true most of the redlinks are spam, but a few are being removed just because the red no-no says so. I'm convinced all you higher ups are all so scared that if we allow one red link then we will have to allow them all, but your fears are unreasonable, and unjustified. If you don't think you will be able to control, and manage things fairly within the proper guidance, then maybe you should all reconsider calling yourselves higher ups. I have taken note that maybe I stumbled into something I wasn't supposed to because I noticed the list to what links here had like 50 members before I started this discussion, and now it is down to 7, but I hope 41 people are watching things, and will give some thought to what I am talking about. Huggums537 (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems there has not been any compromise even with my small suggestions for the redlinks, so there doesn't seem to be any hope of amendment for all the issues in the notice, and I see no other choice except deletion, so I modified my nomination vote accordingly once again. Huggums537 (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Huggums, I think you may be interpreting WP:LISTCRITERIA in a different way than most other editors. A list criterion doesn't have to exactly match one of the examples in WP:LISTCRITERIA. It could be stricter. If a criterion is unambiguous, objective, and has consensus, but doesn't match WP:CSC, it isn't in "violation of guidance". The relevant sentence from WP:LISTCRITERIA is Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. Requiring blue links is a relatively common additional criterion that's added by consensus. It appears that there is consensus here. — hike395 (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not misinterpreting it, I'm saying "Wikipedia articles only" isn't encyclopedic, and it is in conflict with different other guidance. A list that is limited to strictly Wikipedia articles only is not "encyclopedically useful" at all since it is not able to reference anything else other than itself, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The formatting is also crappy with all blue, which is kind of secondary, but still an argument nevertheless. The problem we run into is lists such as the one linked to above where the article unambiguously states, The following is a list of notable Web directory services. directly in the lead, and then also on the talk page it states very clearly: To be included on this stand-alone list, each entry should meet the following list criteria : Per common list selection criterion #1, every entry should meet the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. (emphasis added) So please do tell me how I have misinterpreted anything? I think the better explanation is that we have a festering problem on Wikipedia where a huge amount of editors including admins have this false misconception that a "notable list" means "articles only", but it doesn't, and we need to stop propagating that misconception because it is harmful, and damaging by way of causing conflict, doubt, distrust, confusion, and other issues. Just because something is common doesn't mean it is good. Racism, and bullying are pretty common too, so just roll with them then? Huggums537 (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2022 (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).

Template:Three Worlds Cycle

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All entries redirected. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:14, 16 August 2022 (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).

Template:Obama family tree

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2022 August 23. ✗plicit 23:49, 23 August 2022 (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).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_16&oldid=1106293926"