Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 5

< July 4	July 6 >

July 5 edit

Template:User du-0 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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User du-0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No legitimate purpose, should be deleted or turned into a userbox, this is not a valid language and therefore not a valid part of the babel system on Wikipedia. BarkingFish 23:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userified. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN - deletion no longer required, material has been userfied by A Certain White Cat. BarkingFish 23:52, 5 July 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:Consumerist Worst Company in America 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Consumerist Worst Company in America (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An independently non-notable "award" given by a consumer blog. There is no encyclopedic benefit in a template linking the recipients.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These accolades are common and the 'winners' vary from magazine to magazine. I don't think there is a major business that hasn't won such an 'award'. No value. — ThePowerofX 23:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undue weight given to criticism from a very minor publication. I see no value in having companies labelled in this way, especially when no explanation is given as to why. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Results of a poll of self-selected respondents from a population of the self-selected readers of one blog? Seriously? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undue weight given to criticism from a blog when this template is transcluded into articles. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not encyclopedic, not notable, not NPOV, not not annoying. :P --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:17, 8 July 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:Introedit 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

No need for this as the "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" gadget serves this purpose better. WOSlinker (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and obsolete. Reso lute 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what gadget? And why isn't it active? Generating such an edit link would be extremely useful, since editing the top section causes more edit conflicts because it conflicts the entire page. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if such a gadget is restricted to logged on users, then it is not redundant -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A discussion could be had at WP:VPR about making the garget a default one so that it's on for everyone. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and document so that people can find this. This should probably be transcluded into articles that are tagged with the {{current}} banner or which are currently {{high traffic}} pages, since this would decrease edit conflicts. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the gadget didn't exist, the template would be a very bad idea. If the community deems this type of link suitable for general deployment (and I'd be inclined to agree), this should be done on the MediaWiki level, resulting in its inclusion across all articles. Inserting it into only some articles would create confusing inconsistency. —David Levy 04:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chrome shouldn't be added by content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It needs to be implemented in MediaWiki instead of using hacks like this. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:16, 8 July 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:Colt Ford 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 Withdrawn now that Declaration of Independence has an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colt Ford (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:TOOSOON, WP:NENAN. Links only three articles so far. Even the fourth album would still leave it a little short. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Navbox links five articles, not only three: Average Joe's Entertainment, Ride Through the Country, Chicken & Biscuits, Every Chance I Get and Colt Ford
Average Joe's Entertainment was founded by Ford, but does not link to ANY of Colt's first three albums (or Declaration of Independence for that matter)
Ride Through the Country does not link to Every Chance I Get
Every Chance I Get does not link to Ride Through the Country

Colt Ford has:

5 charted songs and 6 albums which includes:

- 4 studio albums,
- 1 EP, and
- 1 Live Album

Additionally, WP:NENAN requires five links in a navigation box. This navbox already has five links, should have a sixth in due time, but has the potential for 13 links. If it pleases the community, I will gladly start some stub articles about Ford. Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that Colt co-owns Average Joe's, so the template does belong there — as opposed to say, putting the Brad Paisley navbox on the Arista Nashville article. Even so, the parent article doesn't count towards the unofficial 5-article limit of WP:NENAN, and I can't see the live album or EP being notable enough for their own pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does not say that the parent article does not count toward the 5 article minimum, and if it does, someone will need to show me that. Perhaps this is a discussion that needs to take place at the article talk page.

The purpose of having a navbox is to connect articles that would not otherwise be connected. That is exactly what this template does on three of the articles.

Declaration of Independence and/or the 5 charted songs would provide more than enough links.

I wish people would look at a topic to determine whether or not there are enough links to justify a template before they send it to AfD.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And "Ride Through the Country (song)" makes six.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perma-stub. No way can that be fleshed out to a full article. Songs aren't usually notable unless they get Top 20 or higher on country, but some get buzz/reviews lower than that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TPH, I have now added an article for Declaration of Independence (album).

This brings the total number of albums up to 7 (or 6 if we assume that the right people concede that "Ride Through the Country (song)" is not notable).
Again, the articles do NOT ALL link to one another (if I am mistaken, please let me know). Assuming that we did link all of the articles within the article space, the articles would be so long that it would be more difficult to find the links without a navbox, which allows users to go directly from page to page without clicking through up to twice as many sites.
Again, where does it say that the parent article does not count toward the minimum of 5 links?
Country Is as Country Does and Live from the Suwannee River Jam have both charted. The former contains a DVD about the making of Ride Through the Country, and the latter contains "Mr. Goodtime" performed at the annual Suwannee River Jam at the Spirit of the Suwannee Music Park & Campground in Live Oak, Florida. I don't think we really want all six albums placed in the "Colt Ford" article.
"Mr. Goodtime", "Chicken & Biscuits" and "Country Thang" have ALL charted, and per Wikipedia, ALL have music videos. This means that they are all notable, and that a significant amount of information CAN be written about their videos alone. WP:NSONGS says NOTHING about TOP 20, you used the word "usually", and it only needs to chart.
I just added an article for Mr. Goodtime, so we are now up to 8 articles (barring deletion).--Jax 0677 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 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:Playmates 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 rename Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used in one article and it navigates to other navigational boxes. Subst and delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it looks like many other templates that navigate between templates on their doc pages, so can be implemented that way -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IP. It should be on documentation pages, not on articles. Perhaps while we're here we could remove the colon from the name? — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
move to something like {{playboy playmate templates}}, and add it to the actual template pages, and remove it from the article. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per IP. This template doesn't appear to have been designed to go in articles anyway. It should only be used in doc pages, and it should say in it's doc something to that extent. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:19, 8 July 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:Welcome-anon2 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welcome-anon2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant copy of {{Welcome-anon}}. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:08, 5 July 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.