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 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).
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 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).
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).
Propose deletion or merging:Little used portal template, most of the links are subtopics, they are normally provided in the the Topics or related portal section. Template complementary to ((Portals browsebar)), but that can present a very large number of links by cluttering the top of the portals. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Suggestion - Portals browsebar. Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Keep, many uses and obviously useful. If used in the bottom, shouldn't disturb you. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous comment. Used and useful for particular portals. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let each of the portals pages decide whether the use of this template is desirable or not. If it ends up an orphan, we can reconsider it here. --Bsherr (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2018 (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).
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 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).
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 'pictish' infobox has only 20 transclusions. Its unique parameters (|classification=, |symbols=) would be useful for other types of artefact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Pigsonthewing: ((Infobox runestone)) (70 transclusions) might be an appropriate addition to this process. I will defer to your judgment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's another candidate for merging onto Infobox artifact; which would require as separate discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: these messages do not make it clear that the merger would be of Pictish Stone into artifact. Artifact has a lot more parameters. Surely we would not be making all artifacts into Pictish Stones? Pictish stone would just go away. It should have been an artifact to start with. However, there seem to be two (only two) parameters in Pictish stone not in artifact, symbols and classification. Those could be useful for other artifacts bearing unknown symbols. Surely they can be just folded into artifact as optional parameters? If that is so, it probably should be done. Whatever we do , can we get this over? An unsightly message is apprearing on artifact boxes discouraging people from using it as though it were about to disappear, ruining all kinds of information.Botteville (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2018 (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:Deities in Thai folk religion
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).
Propose deletion: Templates seems at least partly a hoax or a joke: e.g. there is no khnṭhrrph in Thai folklore or language. The part that makes any sense is most likely redundant with the Hindu deities template. A more minor issue is that the templates are a mess and needs serious copyediting.Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 20:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Adding second template.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 08:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also ((Deity of folk religion thailand)). —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "khnṭhrrph" appears to be a bad romanisation of คนธรรพ์ (Gandharva), which are indeed mentioned in Thai literature. That said, the subjects are too disparate to warrant being grouped together in a navbox. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:22, 21 November 2018 (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:Mediated
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 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:Calkins Media
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. Ruslik_Zero 20:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The company folded in 2017. Some of the sold newspapers are now listed on this template, thus no need for this template. Csworldwide1 (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the links are enough for a template, and it no longer being an active company has no baring on a template. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 09:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But Calkins is no longer around. It's redundant & useless to keep this template because all of the active links are now listed on the current owners' templates. Even most of the papers listed on this template are non-linked. Csworldwide1 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The papers are linked in other navboxes; no longer relevant to have them in this navbox since the company doesn't own the papers anymore (or exist). Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This probably does not pass the third and fifth criteria of WP:NAVBOX, and I would conclude that this is better off a list or category. Titles of a defunct company seems an unlikely subject for a navigational template. Bsherr (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2018 (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:Brief
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. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With this template that was created in 2006, this is a fan site that provides no new information that cannot be gained from other more reliable "external link" websites (e.g. the BBC itself), making it unnecessary. Nor would using this website directly in an article as a source satisfy WP:RS. -- AlexTW 01:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete no need Hhkohh (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
disagree -- it is a well-sourced website. each episode's article lists multiple sources. many of the sources it cites are books that are not available online. indeed, it appears that Wikipedia pages about DW episodes have borrowed heavily from this site. Straat2289 (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fan site. It can be well-sourced, but we could never use it on this site as a reliable source per WP:RS. -- AlexTW 11:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious fan site that adds nothing to the articles on which it appears. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. Seems the hidden agenda here is to kill templates for external fan sites unless they're run by Wikia/Fandom (i.e., Tardis Data Core). WP:RS discussion is irrelevant as this template is used for external links at the end of articles, NOT references. --RBBrittain (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that this deletion will affect hundreds of articles about Doctor Who episodes (or serials of the original series) spanning more than 50 years. As far as I'm concerned, this request is rubbish intended more to line Jimmy Wales's pockets than actually improve Wikipedia. You sure it wasn't proposed by Daleks or Cybermen? --RBBrittain (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of those hundreds of affected articles, clearly many of them have a lot of data and information sourced from this site. Deleting the template would likely result in tons of information having to be scrubbed from these pages, as it is unclear whether the site in question is the source for the affected wikipedia pages. As for reliability, perhaps WP:TERTIARY applies here. Straat2289 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Straat2289, incorrect. This is the mere template that shows the ""The Woman Who Fell to Earth" at Doctor Who: A Brief History of Time (Travel)" link at the bottom of the page, that's it. No content in the article would be affected. Please familiarize yourself with templates before you make invalid statements,. -- AlexTW 21:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RBBrittain, you want to keep up with the personal attacks? I'm not a fan of the Wikia templates either and I've debated on nominating that one too. Can you actually tell me how this templates contributes to those articles, and what will be lost if it is deleted? -- AlexTW 21:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This seems to me to be a well-researched and referenced website that contains detailed information that cannot be found on other websites. WP:EL suggests that external links can "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy", and this fits that description. (Conversely, I don't think that sites like Wikiquote or IMDB do. An honest question (or two): Why do so many Wiki articles link to them? Should they?) Hotmissile (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hotmissile, that contains detailed information that cannot be found on other websites Such as? -- AlexTW 00:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AlexTheWhovian, I'm not quite sure where to start with that question. Take this random paragraph from a random article: "As it turned out, fate would have prevented Lynn Gardner from becoming a Doctor Who regular even if the production team had elected to retain Ray. On June 14th, Gardner was practicing riding a scooter for “Flight Of The Chimeron” -- part of the advertised requirements for the role -- when she fell and injured herself severely enough that she would be unable to continue as Ray. Sara Griffiths was hired to replace her, although Gardner would still be paid; she was also cast as the Iceworld announcer in Dragonfire by way of compensation." The site is full of information like that which is not suitable for Wikipedia but certainly meaningful & relevant to the episode. Hotmissile (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're wanting to keep it for material that may be of interest to fans only, when it can't actually be used on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not Wikia, we are not a fan site. WP:EL details that if the information cannot be added to the article, it must be for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy, nothing about WP:RS or WP:V. -- AlexTW 01:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be what external links are for. Wikipedia isn't a fansite, so it provides a neutral overview of a topic, and then external links provide further information that may be helpful to a 'fan'. And I say 'fan' because in this case we're talking about fans of a TV series, but you could also talk about fans of football teams, or 'fans' of historical events, or 'fans' of scientific theories. However, I think that you're misreading WP:EL. It says that information could not be added because of copyright or detail; or it could just be not suitable for reasons unrelated to accuracy. Hotmissile (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, per the same guideline that you've used, and reading down at WP:ELNO: one should generally avoid providing external links to: 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. Some sites can provide further information, yes, as long as they're considered a reliable source. This is not. It is a fan site, not written by a recognized authority, and hence does not conform with point 11. -- AlexTW 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, this site does fulfill the criteria given in the "What to link" section before that, including both WP:ELYES #3 and WP:ELMAYBE #4. Hotmissile (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It fails YES #3, because it cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia not because of copyright issues or detail, but because of failing RS, which is where it might pass MAYBE #4. However, it likely fails that too: who are these "knowledgeable sources"? Because of the amount of uncertainty, that is why the template is up for discussion, to get a consensus on what it does and does not pass. -- AlexTW 01:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are dozens of well-researched, well-referenced Doctor Who fansites with interesting and relevant information that isn't available elsewhere. There's no reason to privilege this specific one by integrating it into Wikipedia on a systemic level. We might as well have a TARDIS Eruditorum or Wife in Space template. —Flax5 11:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you're a DW fan looking for DW-related content, you can easily find the wikia, this site, other fan sites, etc - that's what Google's for. This seems like blatant promotion for a particular fan-site when, indeed, there are hundreds of such sites out there. If we treat them all as equal, we'll need templates (and millions of links) for every Who related article on here. This needs to be... exterminated!!!Discord Ian (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ELNO#11 as a fan site/personal website. No indication that an exception should be made here; or that the person running the website has access to "knowledgeable sources" (or is one) as per WP:ELMAYBE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fan sites should not, and never should be, considered as a reliable source. At the very least, this one should not be given that privilege.GUtt01 (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2018 (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:White Power sidebar
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 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:The Christian Music Barnstar
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).
Marked as "Draft" with no work for over a year. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
note cleanuped this nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2018 (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).