Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 14 January 16 >

January 15[edit]

Template:Miss Universe Nederland[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; deleted as G8 by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links non-notable event articles likely to be deleted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Nederland_2013 By time this Tfd finishes the AfD will be wrapped up. Legacypac (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural oppose Even should the two articles at AFD be deleted, the template still has sufficient links. You need to get all the articles to AFD first before this TFD can be properly conducted....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD covered all links except the parent article, is now closed, and all were deleted. This is an orphan now. Legacypac (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused (I purged the page, and all the links turned red except the title and 2010, which don't need a navbox.) —PC-XT+ 04:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost nothing left to navigate. As PC-XT states, only the main pageant and 2010 articles remain. Everything else is a red link. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Universe Nederland 2010 is gone now too. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 18 January 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:Medical conditions[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 after ensuring no information is lost (i.e. incorporate into the existing lists). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this template is moved to a list article or deleted entirely.

This navbox does not help readers navigate through wikipedia. A reader of one disease topic will not use an ICD based classification to navigate to an alternate topic of a different organ system. This adds to navbox clutter on pages and should be removed in lieu of either a list page or removed entirely. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. —PC-XT+ 11:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as deletion would not be appropriate...IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis that the ICD-9 codes are already a series of list articles, and that there is an anchored redirect for List of ICD-10 codes. Little pob (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe after including a similar table in the list article. I find the table more informative than the linked lists as they are currently. —PC-XT+ 04:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (If the project wants this as a subpage, I don't mind a move.) —PC-XT+ 06:15, 18 January 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:Indian records in cricket[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) 06:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:EXISTING Schwede66 21:55, 15 January 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:Dukes of Pannonia[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. Withdrawn by nom, and being actively worked on. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template fails NPOV, as it claims people having a title that they didn't have, and that these several "dukes of Pannonia" were sequential, when this is not the case. Zoupan 01:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is much less of a NPOV violation that it was prior to my split. It's conventional in Croatian historiography to bunch them all together with the dukes of Dalmatian Croatia. I think Kocel and Pribina are the only additions to that, which we later discussed at Talk:Pannonian Croatia and they were removed. Maybe remove them again, and get back to something more akin to the list at [1]? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I updated the title and content to be even less implying of a big happy continuity. Despite the obvious gaps in sequence, navigation between these closely related articles is useful to readers, so keep. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: After edits by Joy, keep, although it needs further clarifications.--Zoupan 14:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, while editors are working on it —PC-XT+ 23:40, 16 January 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:Official websites[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 as an (almost) word-for-word duplication of {{official websites in}}, which is being deleted for breaking elink policy (TFD is below). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is redundant because it is a replica of {{Official websites in}}. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the usage examples given are different. Though a merger between the two, should they be kept would do it, with a parameter to switch between "in" and "for" -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment instead of a switch, plain parameter supporting any passed text like "blank" (default), and "in", "for" -- supporting any custom need WurmWoodeT 21:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — for professional / institutional (gov & ngo) establishments concerning listing a few of their (notable) branches / divisions / international sites. WurmWoodeT 21:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least one of these, though I can see it would be useful to keep one and add a parameter and use this in selected articles. —PC-XT+ 12:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. It is plausible elimination of redundancy. Fleet Command (talk) 15:27, 23 January 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:Official websites in[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. Policy is clear about elinks, so a template that breaks that policy should be removed. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template facilitates hoarding external links in direct violation of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Specifically:

Normally, only one official link is included. [...] more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites.

I stress that we absolutely must not. We want our readers to read the article, not navigate away from it. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - wait, what ? Yes, we do want our readers to navigate away, to get Offical information, tutorials, resources, interactivity, and basically the real deal as opposed to the necessarily summary descriptives of our version of notables found in our articles. WurmWoodeT 22:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least one of these, though I can see it would be useful to keep one and add a parameter and use this in selected articles. —PC-XT+ 12:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one There are official websites that are different in content for the country of origin compared to their English website. If they are easily switchable/linkable between countries, then you can reduce to the single website, otherwise it is useful to keep them on one line rather than having to list separate Official website items. Keep one of these around, and redirect the other to it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. I don't deny the possibility of what you say but even then, a template won't be needed for that. Inline code works quite well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the policy says so; something that everyone has ignored so far. (And the transclusion count is small.) WP:EL policy has a stringent set of requirement for external links, regardless of how useful they are. One exemption is given to one official link that may appear regardless of the inclusion criteria. Other official links are not exempt. AngusWOOF says occasionally they may be okay because of unique contents in one language. Let's examine the first 10 items of current uses:
Nope! I am not convinced this template needs to be kept. Fleet Command (talk) 15:42, 23 January 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_January_15&oldid=1087978468"