Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4 edit

Template:Chelsea F.C. squad 2012 FIFA Club World Cup 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ RobTalk 00:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template isn't in use, and I don't think it's notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, we don't need second place roster boxes. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2016 (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:1989 Wichita State Shockers College World Series Champions 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izkala (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate template; exactly the same as Template:1989 Wichita State Shockers baseball Joeykai (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant, per nom. Billcasey905 (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete the other one; this title is more professional. --Gimubrc (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Rescinded; see below.[reply]
@Gimubrc: Deleting the other one and keeping this one isn't an option, due to attribution issues. This is a direct copy-paste duplication of {{1989 Wichita State Shockers baseball}}. You can even see that the creator of this template made an edit on the other immediately before creating this one. ~ RobTalk 18:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Delete this one. --Gimubrc (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2016 (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:Wikitree side box 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).

The result of the discussion was delete the side box. Side boxes are used sparingly and never for linking to third-party sites. You can ask on WP:ELN about linking to Wikitree in the footer of the article. Izkala (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It feels really spammy, and I don't see any particular reason to link to this one website or to have a template for that purpose. It creates the appearance of some sort of connection between Wikipedia and Wikitree. And it links to an open Wiki, violating WP:ELNO. -- Irn (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Author I am on editor on both Wikitree and Wikipedia. The two wikis complement each other: Wikipedia concentrates on notability and biography; Wikitree concentrates on the family tree. Most of the family tree will not be notable and therefore should be excluded in Wikipedia but (in my view) there should be a link to that person's tree on Wikitree. Are you proposing a complete removal of this link or do want want it changed it some way? Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template User I am not sure why you want this wonderful addition deleted from the Wikipedia articles. I looked through the list of Links Normally to be Avoided and I think WikiTree is not a conflict to any of the items, 1 through 19.
extract from WP:EL

1 Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. The unique resource is the individual's twig on the worldwide WikiTree.

2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. No, not WikiTree.

3 Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. No, not WikiTree.

4 Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming. No, not WikiTree.

5 Individual web pages[6] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. No, not WikiTree.

6 Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[5] See § Sites requiring registration. No, not WikiTree. WikiTree is FREE.

7 Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that work only with a specific browser or in a specific country. No, not WikiTree. WikiTree is a one, worldwide family tree.

8 Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See § Rich media for more details. No, not WikiTree.

9 Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds. WikiTree is not at search engine. It is a family tree.

10 Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists. No, not WikiTree.

11 Blogs, personal web pages and 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 who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) No, not WikiTree.

12 Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. Our tree includes 11,043,210 profiles edited by 317,151 genealogists from around the world.

13 Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. The template links are directly to the individual's WikiTree profile page.

14 Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers. WikiTree has none of these.

15 Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools.[5] For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates. No, not WikiTree.

16 Sites that are not reliably functional and/or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time. The WikiTree website has been operational since 2008.

17 Affiliate, tracking or referral links, i.e., links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information. No, not WikiTree.

18 External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages. No, not WikiTree.

19 Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.[5][7] No, not WikiTree.

I hope this answers your questions and that you will accept the links to WikiTree pages. Thanks for your consideration. Kitty Cooper-1 Smith KinCityKitty (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Violates WP:ELNO and WP:NOTADVERTISING, since this is obviously pushing traffic toward Wikitree. ~ RobTalk 01:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, please note the off-site canvassing here. ~ RobTalk 01:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Author Wikitree provides information that supplements Wikipedia. It is not pushing traffic towards Wikitree. If you want a biography you go to Wikipedia; if you want a family tree you go to Wikitree. The choice is up to the reader. I cannot see that removing this link is going to benefit the typical reader. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above; consider starting a discussion elsewhere to see if there is consensus for creating a template for external links sections, like {{IMDb name}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 13 April 2016 (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).

Templates of Australian Tours 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ RobTalk 01:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational templates for tours of national cricket teams are never needed. GreenCricket (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Being part of those touring parties is not a notable, definable characteristic for those players. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2016 (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:Pet Sounds tracks 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).

The result of the discussion was delete all except {{L.A. (Light Album) tracks}} and {{Endless Summer tracks}}. All delete rationales assumed that navboxes existed for those two track templates, but as one editor pointed out, they do not. There is no prejudice against a quick renomination with or without creating the two navboxes, but the delete arguments advanced in this discussion are clearly based on a misunderstanding, so more discussion would be needed. ~ RobTalk 14:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of the unnecessary templates for The Beach Boys, completely redundant in place of {{Pet Sounds}} which is a much more informative navigational template. —IB [ Poke ] 14:54, 4 April 2016 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_4&oldid=1141875791"