< June 13 June 15 >

June 14

Template:Monograph of living chitons

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monograph of living chitons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation that is essentially hardcoded text that was on three pages. Now orphaned and unused. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2014 (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:Disused-stations

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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disused-stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Disused-stations/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is substantively the same as using Template:Subbrit but with a less obvious template name. I question whether it qualifies as a WP:RS generally here but it's only used on one article as an external link (versus the website's use in the other template as a reference). While I'm not certain it's could be a reliable link overall, at the very least it violates WP:ELNEVER given the extensive admitted use of copyrighted materials (pictures, maps, etc.). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to a merge under a sensible name. The site in some places contains primary (original) research, which is why it's an external link and not a citation template.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, it's only used one as an external link. It's main use is as a citation template. See my discussion at WP:RSN because the portion that it is used for (namely, when stations closed) is a pretty odd reason to use that since that's like one of the few things they aren't good sources for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (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:Last Kings Entertainment

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Last Kings Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Not even the record label it is navigating has an article due to lack of notability. STATic message me! 21:06, 14 June 2014 (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:Orphan

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. Closing this early, as the overwhelming consensus here is for the template to be retained. Discussion regarding concerns or how to improve the template can always continue on its talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 09:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no consensus for the use of this tag and a considerable consensus that it should not be placed upon articles in its current form. There seem to be technical difficulties in getting anything done about this so I suggest that it be deleted or blanked in the meantime. I would edit the thing myself but it is protected. This has also prevented me from placing a deletion tag upon it. Andrew (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew what do you mean there is no consensus to use this? Do you have a link for that? I think you misinterpreted the current consensus. I suggest speedy keep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have put a link to a relevant RfC in the nomination. There is further extensive discussion on the template's talk page. The matter seems to be stalled because the template is protected. As this is "templates for discussion", this seems to be the right place to get some action. Andrew (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew no it's not. The template is treated OK per consensus. It is invisible as a sole template and visible inside Multiple issues. There is no consensus not to track orphan pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invisible? It seemed quite visible in recent cases such as this. Please explain what you mean by "invisible as a sole template". Andrew (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm here because I keep seeing it. It is not invisible to me. Andrew (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the place to discuss technical issues. It is invisible for me too. Btw, visibility should not be a valid reason for deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magioladitis Understood. (I have no opinion in this either way; thanks for clarifying current consensus.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is still very visible to me when placed as a sole template, as well in multiple issues, and so something is broken. Andrew (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's visible as a sole template only if the date is within the last two months. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandarax OK. Prefect. I did not know that. I agree. Still not the place to clarify this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that discussion, Technical 13 states "the current consensus is that the tag should never be seen by anyone unless they specifically want to see it". This does not seem to be what has been implemented. Please remove the two month period of visibility, for which there is no consensus. Andrew (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew this is an off-topic discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) lol, selective reading much? I (Technical 13 that you're quoting) concur that the two months is appropriate and inside of multiple issues is appropriate. Further, you don't have to see it if you don't want to... Simply add:
.ambox-Orphan {
    display: none !important;
}
to your css page and they will all go away which satisfies my above (manipulated) comment. — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c) 21:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK on the ground of this discussion and per long-standing consensus I oppose any deletion. The reason to make it go away because some people do not like tags on pages is against my view about Wikipedia where everyone is a potential editor. If we want to increase connectivity between pages we need to start connecting pages to each other and ask the community to do so. Tags was always the way to do it because Wikipedia is always under construction and this is the good thing about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I 've been working with orphan pages for a long time and I fail to see how removing tracking categories and tags from thousands of pages will benefit the project other than abandoning any effort to work with orphan pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sidney Kennon
  2. Tirril Brewery
Andrew (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. You needed to say "I am sorry that I have offended you by cherry picking your comment". Your apology is a trick of rhetoric to pretend that you have apologised when you really have not. It is every bit as polite as saying "I am sorry but..." So I reject your non apology. I'm not interested , now, in anything you have to say on this matter, simply because you have chosen this silly device of speech. Two goes at oratory now. Fiddle Faddle 17:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS: In fact you had told me that there should be new consensus if any of us still want to use Orphan tag. Here it is. Let's see how well it goes. I don't think that anyone will really take the responsibility of moving the tag to talk page. In fact it will be huge task, so it is better to take benefit of the current situation, in my opinion it was seemingly better to keep using the tag. We've already moved forward. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A bot could move them easily. A less disruptive method is to simply change it so that new tags have to be added to the talk pages, eventually the backlog will disappear. -- PBS (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show that how a bot capable of doing that? Or if you have done that before you should provide diffs. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PBS, you're overlooking the fact that it can not function properly from the talk page, and none of the tools that place the tag can deal with it being on a separate page. Since option A of moving it to the talk page is not an option, then we must move on to option B, which is to make it less visible on the article itself OR option C which is to completely disband WikiProject Orphanage and delete their template. Option B has already been accomplished. It only appears to the reader for the first two months or if grouped with other issues. It only appears to us autoconfirmed, registered editors for the first two months or if grouped with other issues, but we have the option to add a single little snippet of code to our custom css to never have to see it. In order to achieve option C, you would first have to gain global consensus that WP:ORPHAN should be disbanded, then achieve a consensus to delete. — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c) 16:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What can not function properly? -- PBS (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PBS there is a consensus to keep in article space as invisible in most cases. Bot tagging is essential. I have offered to move all tags in talk pages i.e. 100,000+100,000 as soon as we find software to tag orphans in talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PBS the RfC was only on the placement of the tag and not its necessity. Orphan tagging is important for Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a special problem with this tag — there's nothing you can do to improve the page that it is placed on. You are implicitly expected to go off and start editing some other, unspecified pages instead. This is a significant distraction when one is trying to work on a particular page. Andrew (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then per the documentation, hide it so you don't have to look at it. The template, when used alone, adds a couple links that you can do to improve the page that it is placed on and those links only work from on that page. The template also categorizes the page so that other users can try and find pages to link back to that page. All pages with no incoming links from on-wiki should have this tag, even if there is no way to de-orphan it right now simply for the categorizing feature. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a parameter for those that aren't expected to be deorphanable in the first two months to not have readers have to see it, but that is something that would have to be manually selected and the template would still need to be on the page for the categorization to work so the bots can do their job. There are a few other things that could be done, but I've said too much already and WP:TfD is Not the correct forum for those discussions. You want to discuss it further? Withdraw this nomination (as it obviously won't succeed anyways based on the sheer numbers of (speedy|snow)? keeps and lack of reasoning to delete it other than "I just don't like it" and start a proper discussion on the template's talk page. — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c) 18:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert, can you start a new discussion on the template's talk page with an example of these "mistakes"? Keep in mind, some people define orphan by the rule of three where-as Although a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag, three or more is ideal and will help ensure the article is reachable by readers. AWB still supports the option for this rule-of-three last I checked (Magioladitis, as a developer for that tool, can you confirm that and also have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage/Archive 2#Orphan criteria where, apparently, there was an internal change in the WikiProject to kill the rule-of-three for tagging). — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c) 19:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Example provided on template talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy for freaking keep Its one of the best templates to use on New page patrol and its used by Twinkle Why would you not keep it? LorChat 04:44, 16 June 2014 (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:Infobox artist

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 per the overwhelming consensus below that indicates that a large proportion of editors are against this idea. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox artist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox artist with Template:Infobox person.
Artists are people. The artist template parameters are largely a subset of Infobox person's; those that are not could often be usefully used for other people. The "artist" template name is best kept as a redirect, or wrapper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • True enough; I'm withdrawing my vote. (I'm neutral on this now.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not reflexive opposition it is the difference in perception between how templates work technically, and how they work in practice, the psychology of it, if you will. --Bejnar (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2014 (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:Arbitration ruling

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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arbitration ruling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, which doesn't have a current use as it's function has been taken over by Template:Ds/talk notice or a more specific template which details exactly what the decision entails. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:08, 14 June 2014 (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.
More