Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 21

< July 20	July 22 >

July 21 edit

Template:Uw-vgoblock 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-vgoblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No use of template was found in text search results. Also rarely updated. Eye snore 16:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has ARBCOM been informed of the deletion nomination? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is there any reason why ARBCOM should be informed? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this template has ever been used, nor is there any reason why it should be needed, as its purpose can be adequately served by other block templates. (It scarcely takes any effort to type in a mention of "grossly offensive vandalism" when posting a block notice, if any administrator ever wishes to do so.) The fact that it is not kept up to date is probably because nobody uses it, so nobody takes any notice of it. Having a template around with inaccurate information is potentially harmful, as it could one day be used, and mislead someone. Obviously, we could just update it now, but since it is not likely to then be kept up to date, it will be better to simply delete it. (This template was created by an editor who retired from Wikipedia three and a half years ago. The editor created numerous block-notice related templates, few of which added anything worthwhile to existing templates, and none of which has, as far as I can see, ever been used to any significant extent. Some of them were deleted years ago.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I imagine the old email address still redirects to the new one so I dont see that as a problem. But I updated it anyway. Is it really harmful to let near-duplicate templates stay? Arent we supposed to be discouraging using templates altogether in favor of individually worded messages? —Soap— 14:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - JBW sums it up nicely. No reason to take care of something that no one is using. I didn't know it existed, I just type in the reasons myself. We already have too many unused or underused templates. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete purely on the basis that the template has existed since August 9, 2010, and appears to never have been used.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:07, 28 July 2015 (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:Afdb name 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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afdb name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Advertising for a commercial/vendor site. While this site may have been a legitimste resource when the template was created about a decade ago, it's now just a porn vendor site selling dvds and video-on-demand services. We don't even link to Amazon author pages; there's no reason to have a template facilitating buying/renting porn video from a particular vendor, just because it allows the customer to search by performer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. There's no reason to delete a template just because it "facilitates buying/renting porn video from a particular vendor". Afdb still has more the appearance and function of an information database than that of an advertising site selling stuff, and can still be a good source of information; furthermore it may also have been used to reference facts in articles. Just deciding to delete the template and deface articles just because someone has decided the site has suddenly become a "porn vendor site" that's profiting from Wikipedia is certainly not the way to go. Remember that vendors are perfectly allowed to profit from Wikipedia anyway by freely reusing its content (with proper credits of course). -- 83.101.43.209 (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Begs the question: How is internet movie database different from adult film database?68.148.186.93 (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, seems no worse than the IMDb template. if the site is banned as an external link, then yes delete the template, but if the site is not banned, seems like a good idea use a template for linking to it. Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also Keep - important and relevant information (especially the revealing video interview). Davidkt 07:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep - The Adult Film Database has long been considered by the Pornography Project to be reliable for its filmographies. Guy1890 (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guy1890. --– jfsamper ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 02:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after a quick check the source seems to be regarded as reasonably acceptable by the the Wikiproject whose article base probably uses the template the most. (also more generally per WP:NOTCENSORED).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:13, 28 July 2015 (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:Anwar Masood 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anwar Masood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One parent article and a poem are the only links in the template.68.148.186.93 (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2015 (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:Pan American Games Futsal 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pan American Games Futsal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No consensus at the previous discussion. Only one blue link and no changes following the previous discussion. Someone really needs to explain how this is a useful aid to navigation if this is to be kept. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no need for a two-link navbox, but especially where the links are parent article and specific instance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to Futsal at the Pan American Games it has only been played at one Games -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rarely used and updated. Only two transclusions. Eye snore 14:00, 25 July 2015 (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:New Orleans Highways 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Orleans Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per past precedent shown in the discussions here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here these sorts of templates have been judged to be redundant to the appropriate article categories, and because these navboxes distort the "What links here" results. Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per all of my past voting. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per past precedent illustrated multiple times. Dough4872 13:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and WP:NENAN. --torri²(^talk/_contribs) 23:50, 27 July 2015 (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.