Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 6 October 8 >

October 7 edit

Template:2007 MLB season game log by team 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 ~ Rob13Talk 16:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

basically duplicates linking provided by Template:2007 MLB season by team. Frietjes (talk) 18:57, 7 October 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:Young King 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 16:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question is whether it should be used, not if it should be used. --SuperJew (talk) 17:50, 8 October 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:YongSeo 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 16:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question is whether it should be used, not if it should be used. --SuperJew (talk) 17:50, 8 October 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:Zalaegerszegi TE matches 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. There's long-standing consensus at TfD that a navbox with just a couple links does not provide worthwhile navigation, and that is the case here. No case has been made for how this provides useful navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 16:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again the question is whether it should be used and not if it is used. In this case the links are red-linked, but the question in my eyes is if it is because they are not notable or just because no one has created the articles yet. I think they are notable as the Magyar Kupa is the national cup of Hungary (much like the FA Cup which has a page for each of their finals) and the Szuperkupa is the annual match between the Magyar Kupa winner and the league winner (much like the FA Community Shield which has a page for each of their matches). And the Hungarian league is fully pro. --SuperJew (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It links articles, but they're redlinked. The reason they're redlinked is because no one has created them yet, not because they are not notable. --SuperJew (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinked = no article exists. Therefore it doesn't link any articles. This fails to provide any useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinked when the article matter is notable means that there is potential for that article. Would you prefer they be stubs so that they'll be blue links? --SuperJew (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for example I have done for 2010 Magyar Kupa Final. You are welcome to help create too, instead of trying to delete! --SuperJew (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete. Not enough links to warrant a navbox, and I'm not sure it's appropriate topic anyway. WP:NENAN. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding if it's an appropriate topic there are a lot of templates like it --SuperJew (talk) 09:57, 11 October 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:Zoink Games 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. REFUNDable provided more linked articles are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is used now. "Unused" is the wrong rationale here to ask for deletion. The first question which should be asked is should video games get a template by company? The answer seems to me yes as the category of video games by company templates contains 184 templates (all used). The next question which should be asked is does this template aid navigation at first glance it seems that no as there are only 2 blue-linked games, but as we can see for example at 22Cans the template can be expanded to have related articles too and therefore this template should be kept and expanded, not deleted. --SuperJew (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 2 entries isn't even close to enough to warrant a nav box line this. The subject, Zoink itself, is currently unsourced and probably likely to be deleted itself - another bad sign. Sergecross73 msg me 03:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation, and probably shouldn't be used to navigate between the two it does link anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:44, 10 October 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:Züm lines 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 16:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 7 October 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:Újpesti TE 1993–94 European Cup (waterpolo) 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 ~ Rob13Talk 16:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once more the rationale is incorrect. The question is not if the template is "unused" or not as it is easy enough to add it to articles. The question is whether European Cup (water polo) champions squad should be in a template. As I didn't manage to find anymore examples of such a case I would say there is no consensus for this. Furthermore, the links at this template discussed all seem to be basketball players. --SuperJew (talk) 17:40, 8 October 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:Sport Club Corinthians Paulista squad 2000 FIFA Club World Championship 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 Relisted on 2016 October 15 ~ Rob13Talk 16:36, 15 October 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:Cite additional archived pages 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 Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) Pppery 19:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Used in less than 60 articles. It never caught on (created in 2009) and somewhat duplicates the functionality of {{wayback}} and {{webcite}} which are easier to work with (1 link = 1 template), or simply use bare URLs to link multiple versions. It also makes archive maintenance for bots more difficult which are not designed for this template. GreenC 15:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR. A new solution is being worked out here. -- GreenC 17:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep preferably, or else merge. Merge into CS1 templates/modules, or else keep (adjusted 02:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC) per comments below). This template provides WP:CS1-styled additional archive links, which the CS1 templates/module do not directly support. It is useful to provide additional archives (ie to webcite and wayback) as archives can and do go dead - e.g. when a new owner makes a domain incompatible with wayback by denying bots, all previous existing archives at wayback become inaccessible. - Evad37 [talk] 16:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I just learned about it today from your post. I also have tools that are effected and can think of more like Checklinks, reFill etc.. There are other ways to achieve what this template does that are more standard and better supported. If CS1-style is wanted, probably the best thing is incorporate support into CS1/2 for multiple archives (|archiveurl2=). I'll link to this from Help talk:Citation Style 1. -- GreenC 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the bot problem was only just reported to the bot operator at 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC). You haven't even given them a chance to respond – there could potentially be a relatively simple fix to render the bot issue moot. - Evad37 [talk] 17:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't yet responded, because I've been trying to think of a solution, but haven't come across any yet. While IABot has the sophistication it needs to allow for this kind of expansion, it's only because this bot has an incredibly complex and sophisticated parsing engine I designed for it. Other less companies lex bots are much less likely going to be able to support this and in most cases will likely ignore this template since it's kind of just there.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access
    I would be okay with merging this template's functionality into the CS1 templates/modules, if that makes it easier for bots and tools. And it would actually be easier for editors too, the only reason I use this template is because I was directed to it from Help talk:CS1 (by an editor who is now retired) [1]. - Evad37 [talk] 02:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep preferably, or else merge (per Evad). Also, {{wayback}} and {{webcite}} are single-source templates, and comparatively inflexible. Secondly, they are stylistically at a disadvantage (non-CS1). Finally {{cite archives}} provides better options, imo. Archive maintenance by bots is a bot problem, that doesn't have anything to do with the template's usability. 184.75.21.30 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    the template's usability. The community doesn't really use the template (60 instances in 7 years). The "CS1 style" gives the appearance of CS1 without the underlying support (tracking cats, error system, help system, tool support etc). -- GreenC 21:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference was about usability, not popularity. Is the template usable to readers? by far the most important category of users. It potentially adds information normally missing from citations, in one of the widely used styles that readers may be familiar with. Does it potentially improve the including article? That is the thing. The second aspect of usability concerns editors. Is the template useful? well-documented? easy to implement? This is what is pertinent for editing usability. I doubt whether a typical Wikipedia reader cares abouts tracking cats, bot-compatibility, or error messaging. And they shouldn't. With the exception of error-messaging, I doubt most editors care about the internal Wikipedia mechanics. And they shouldn't. Wikipedia doesn' exist for Wikipedia's sake. Complying with the requirements of tracking, robots, or any such items should not be the criterion of deleting anything, per se. Is there another template that provides the same functionality with similar ease-of-use and reader comprehension, but is also complying with Wikipedia's internal procedures? Between the two, the latter would have my vote. If such a template doesn't exits, popularity by itself may not be a good enough reason to delete anything. 72.43.99.146 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    60 instances in 7 years A lot of that has been since I was directed to this template two years ago, and usage is only likely to increase. In any case, I hope we can all agree that having archive urls is good, that putting them in appropriate templates is better than plain square-bracket wikimarkup, and that the community values citation consistency (WP:CITESTYLE, WP:FACR#2c). Therefore, having some way through templates (even if not necessarily this template) to format additional archive urls in the very common CS1 style is a good thing. - Evad37 [talk] 02:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some sort of generic archive url template which {{wayback}} and {{webcite}} could become wrappers for, but which would support any archiving service (e.g. Pandora), would probably be a good idea (less code duplication, consistent styling and date checking etc) but that needs to be a broader discussion than this TfD. Perhaps a TfM for {{wayback}} and {{webcite}} - Evad37 [talk] 02:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Noting that this is being worked on at Template:Webarchive (discussion) - Evad37 [talk] 06:30, 14 October 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:Out of town 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 Relisted on 2016 October 15 ~ Rob13Talk 16:36, 15 October 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:British Isles Discuss 3 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 16:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; redundant to {{British Isles Discuss 2}}. ({{British Isles Discuss}} has already been deleted as redundant.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 7 October 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:User inactive travel 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 16:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Redundant to the various Wikibreak templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 7 October 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).

Junior Eurovision Song Contest navboxes 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 relist at 16 Oct. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 16 October 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:Albania in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 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 Relisted on 2016 October 16 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:32, 16 October 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:Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest 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 !votes are tied but the delete rationale is based on better policy than the keep rationale. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to be useful. This has to be the most complicated navbox I have seen to link between two articles. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep navbox aids navigation for content to a country which was participating in a contest watched by millions. And is also on an article that is GA status. Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't aid navigation. There are two articles. You don't need a navbox for that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency with all countries competing in this competition. --SuperJew (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency with WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to keep a useless navigation template. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lebanon never seems to have competed in this competition at all, as all of the links are striked out. Pppery 15:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, can be trivially recreated if they ever participate. Frietjes (talk) 23:42, 11 October 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:Web Entertainment 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record label rosters and catalogues unsuitable for navbox inclusion per precedent at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 7 October 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:Melbourne City W-League Current Squad 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 merge into parent article. For attribution purposes, template has been moved to this subpage with proper notifications placed on the article talk. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only place it was called was at the club page, and there was replaced as it was cumbersome to go to the template every time for an edit and the template has no use beyond being a template. SuperJew (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, now that it has been merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this template appear to have been merged into the article, which means that the history must be kept for attribution reasons. Pppery 15:30, 8 October 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:Combined Pilots-Observation Badge with Diamonds 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 ~ Rob13Talk 16:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of "Recipients of Combined Pilots-Observation Badge with Diamonds" (or "Combined Pilots-Observation Badge with Diamonds" for that matter) has not been covered in depth in historiography. Combining the recipients into a navigational template appears to be indiscriminate. The article Pilot/Observer Badge lists the "Diamonds" recipients, and this seems sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 7 October 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:UWAYOR 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-policy and unnecessary disclaimer (warns: "Use Wikipedia at your own risk!"). Only 14 transclusions, mostly in archived talk pages and. or by users who no longer edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no valid rationale for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: On further inspection, the template has only one single transclusion that is not a just part of a list of templates, and that is on the talk page of a user who last edited in 2013. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see any usefulness. --SuperJew (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 7 October 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:KTZ style 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template with no other function than adding styles, bars and colours to templates The Banner talk 01:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are more than 600 such templates, which shows that styling in this was is used frequently. If you want to change that, nominate all 600 of them in one nomination. Pppery 19:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Identical nominations (and !votes) combined into one discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as part of the {{S-line}} system of railroad templates. That system of templates could be coded better, but for now, the whole family of them is necessary. If you want to start a discussion about making the rail templates better, I suggest WT:RR. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 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:ARP 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. REFUND applies provided that the usage/elink are deemed to be worth having a standalone template. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Follow up in light of the fact that the nominator removed all usage of this template shortly after creating this discussion, and that consensus was not achieved for removing aireport as an external link, I have decided to follow the consensus below and re-close this discussion as procedural keep. The nominator is welcome to re-nominate the template for discussion, but strongly warned not to remove its usage until after a consensus is achieved. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:ARP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Provides a link to operational reports from airport users which is not an encyclopedic subject and without a template would not be added to the article as it adds no value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there are still links to the site, the template should not be deleted. Find consensus to remove the links first, please. Furthermore, there is no policy preventing links to crowd-sourced external sites. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Dont understand your comment if we didnt delete templates with links then probably no point having this page, seems an arse about face argument. In any case the template adds nothing encyclopedic to the articles but if I had removed them all first them somebody would have jumped up and down saying it needs to be discussed first. Not sure where crowd-sourced comes from, this is a an opinion website which adds no encyclopedic value a bit like adding trip advisor to every article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that if the template is deleted now, it will first be subsituted, and the links will remain in articles, as ordinary wiki-markup external links, making it harder; to track up update them (if, say the target site's link structure changes). If you want to remove the links, you must first obtain consensus for that, then remove them, and only then have the template deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close for the time being Well, I agree with MilborneOne – the information doesn't look encyclopedic to me either, but I agree even more with Pigsonthewing that TFD is not the right place to be discussing this. Ideally the readers of airport articles should judge, so, as a proxy, the editors of these articles. I can't see any links from articles to this template which was only created a few hours ago but I see Millborneone has been removing them.[2] I suggest waiting to see if Coisabh intends adding more transclusions and to see if there are objections to their inclusion or removal before proceeding further here. Thincat (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete, it seems there is currently only one article linking to these reviews (Birmingham Airport) and its not using the template. Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The site is no longer being linked to from anywhere on-wiki. I invite Andy and Thincat to respond per their previous comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:02, 7 October 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_October_7&oldid=1084289421"