Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 21

< November 20	November 22 >

November 21 edit

Template:The Dirty Heads 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. DrKiernan (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Dirty Heads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This looks to me like a case of "gaming the system". Navbox contains a bare minimum of links, while the majority of entries listed lack articles. That, combined with the content and tone of the main article, appears to constitute subtle promotion of a band which could be best described as a poor man's Sublime. The main article and the few related articles could be linked just fine without the navbox. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not enough links to require a navbox, and articles are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 01:23, 22 November 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:Salt 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 Keep. DrKiernan (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely unused and unnessesary template. Pointless, should be deleted. I couldn't tag the page because it is semi protected. 179.210.38.88 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I tagged the page for you, and also notified Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Template:Salt. -PC-XT+ 01:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Granted, this is a template that won't be used often, and the articles on which it will appear usually have a lower life expectancy than the ones tagged with a speedy deletion template, but when an editor tries to circumvent a create protection with a slight change in the title, the deleting admin of the new incarnation has to know what's going on, especially if it's not the same admin who dealt with the original article. No point in making several listings at WP:RPP for different variants of the same title, and this template has been created so that this step might be skipped. --- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm not sure how this works. Is it supposed to place the page in a category the admins watch? Or, how does it get their attention? Does it rely on a speedy deletion template to be placed on the page, as well? -PC-XT+ 07:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. When the admin comes to investigate the speedy deletion template and sees this template as well on the article itself, that's how he realizes what's going on. From my experience, it's more efficient than WP:RPP listings or even categories for this kind of situation. The db- template doesn't give the reviewing admin a clue that this is a variant of a previously create-protected title, and that's where the salt template comes into play. --- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. I think I see. It's just for information during a speedy delete, then? The category handler confused me. I see how the template could be useful, so I'm not saying delete, and I don't know any more useful replacement, so I'm !voting keep. —PC-XT+ 23:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When things are going well, this template will not be used anywhere. It meets a valid need as described by Blanchardb (a bit like some administrative tracking categories that are normally empty, but where it's important to know when they're not). --NSH002 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as an admin, I can attest that we don't see this template as often as the other warning tags, but when we do, it's indispensable. Those people who really, really, really, really want their bio/band/whatever to have a page are persistent and extremely clever. We've had to salt as many as 12 different spellings/variants of a name for the same content. We need all the help we can get to identify them; without this tag to help us, it's like working blind. Krakatoa Katie 12:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Save a lot of work when used. Agathoclea (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It works just as it should, to alert deleting administrators that a page should be considered for salting. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Katie and Malik. Good for what it does. Miniapolis 20:57, 1 December 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:Sources regarding United States federal and state sunshine laws 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. DrKiernan (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sources regarding United States federal and state sunshine laws (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another Navbox consisting entirely of links to external sites. NSH002 (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 01:25, 22 November 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:Sources relevant to many articles in the category Legislative branch of the United States government 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. DrKiernan (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sources relevant to many articles in the category Legislative branch of the United States government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Blatant violation of the rule that navboxes do not contain links to external sites - see WP:NAVBOX. Template consists entirely of links to external sites. NSH002 (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 01:25, 22 November 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.