Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 4 January 6 >

January 5

Template:SADR topics

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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SADR topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:Western Sahara topics Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is never too late to propose deletion (which is the case here), but the success rate for such deletions is low.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are articles as
WP:DEL-REASON: Improvement is preferable to deletion of page. Jan CZ (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Except that we don't have separate Category:Country and territory topics templates for government and other topics. I put your list on the WS template. No need for a separate template dealing with the SADR government. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2013 (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:Robert Kiyosaki

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) 01:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Robert Kiyosaki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost all of the template is plain text (no links) and could be considered an advertisement for this author's books. The article (Robert Kiyosaki) seems like enough. Trialeditor (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2013 (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:Instagram

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) 01:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I fail to see a need for a template for this, since it is very unlikely that we are going to be adding this to the EL section in articles. if it is kept, it should be restricted to uses outside of article space. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2013 (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:Property tax rates in Massachusetts

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) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Property tax rates in Massachusetts  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template consisting of outdated information. Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2013 (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:Southeastern Conference quarterback navbox

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) 00:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southeastern Conference quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are two pretty good reasons why this is a terrible idea for a template, and should be deleted.

1) It's a fluid list. Many schools change their starting quarterback multiple times over the course of the season. Who is the starter at any given point in the season isn't of that much import.
2) Half of the quarterbacks in this template don't have articles.

I am also nominating the following templates for deletion for the same reasons:

Template:Atlantic Coast Conference quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Big Ten Conference quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pacific-12 Conference quarterback navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)


In addition, I can find no precedent for such a template existing. The Pac-12, Big Ten, and Big 12 have no similar template; even the NFL (where all the QBs pass the specific notablity guidelines and therefore have articles) doesn't have this

p 04:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Just because an NFL one exists doesn't mean this one should. The bigger point is that there are any redlinks at all. Most templates don't have any
p 14:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
  2. "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
  3. "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template."

There is no mention of other current starting quarterbacks from their respective conferences in the overwhelming majority of linked articles, and there is no stand-alone article or list whose primary subject is the starting quarterbacks in the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, or Pac-12. Moreover, between 17 percent and 42 percent of the links in each of these four navboxes are red links, thus violating yet another principle of good navboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2013 (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 placement discussion

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 discussion closed, so the bot can archive the page :) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

This is not a deletion nomination. I would like to open a discussion (with more eyeballs than the template's talk page will get) about moving this template to the article talk page, like {{
WP:POINTy, especially if it's a short stub, in which case the tag dominates the entire page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 03:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I can see your point on this and have also been unsure on this one. One of the big differences between reqphoto and orphan templates is however that image requests are thankfully added manually while most pages tagged as orphaned are via semi-automatic tools and bots. I think there are a number of different points to discuss here. Namely: should it be on the article or talk page; should it be in-your-face loud; should it be only added manually; and what are the criteria and classifications of an orphan page.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even the most obscure articles ought to have at least one incoming link. If they don't, I'd say that's a problem on a par with a lack of wikilinks or unformatted references, and requires an equally prominent tag. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is one of the few nag-tags that motivates me to do something about since it's so easy to fix. In other words, it seems to be pretty useful. Burying it on the talk page, eh, probably won't be as effective. --
    talk) 16:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
article or talk page
style

Agree it is a very loud big tag on a often small article page. I did propose a small version after someone else complained about this, but apparently this was against style policy.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel that maintenance templates should again have a small rethink. The introduction of the multiple issues template was of course a good step forward although I think individual templates could be phased out and all issues be reported in one template box with the same style as per multiple issues. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 07:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
manual or automatic
  • One of the big problems is that there are many people busy adding this tag but only a few working to remove it. AutoWikiBrowser and a number of bots test for and add the Orphan template but there are no tools to assist with removing it.
    Proposing that it is only added manually would reduce the issue you are discussing but really only hides the problem of orphaned pages.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that there was a bot that removed orphan tags from non-orphans, and if there isn't, then I'd support its creation. Automatic additions might be problematic (at least when the article is only a few weeks old, so people haven't had a chance to integrate it) but removals should be easy and automatic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a bot removing the orphan tags but due to multiple reasons (i lost the code). I have just re written the bot and I am currently doing a first run on Category:Attempted de-orphan. Lets see how many we can weed out! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first run halfed the size of the category from 1440 to 704. The bot removed 736 orphan tags. See User:Addbot/log/orphan which I will keep updated. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good news. Some of the categories are so large at the moment it puts people of attempting to address them. Only thing an automatic method cannot check for, I assume, is a walled garden, It did de-tag a few of these. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just over 41 thousand orphan tags removed from articles! I am still waiting on the result from Feb09 (the biggest month) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
definition

The definition of what an orphan is has been changed from an article with only a few link to it to an article with only one link to it. There is now an option in the template for few if someone feels it is still important to have more links. I also added the option cat to identify articles probably will never have links to them but are in categories, for example plant sub-species, asteroids and New Zealand poets. I think it would be good to change the default of these classifications to display a small infobox.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion
  • I may be in a minority here (I may not), but
    WP:BUILD is an important guideline and {{orphan}} helps to attract attention to such things. Are there many (any?) cases where an article really doesn't need any inbound links? Is it even part of our web in that case? "Move it to the talk page" is all well and good, but typically talk page banners of that sort are only for creative requests like images and not for things which should be a basic part of article creation and maintenance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Do you mean
WP:BUILD? DoctorKubla (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Some examples of articles that probably never will have links to them.
(229945) 1998 US8.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
#1 should be linked from the list in its see also section, if in fact it is notable enough to have an article at all; #2 should be linked from the articles of whatever notable publications she contributed to, if in fact she is notable enough to have an article at all; #3 could be linked from any of the various biological articles it references; #4 should be linked from the list in its see also section (which is actually a redlink at present), if in fact it is notable enough to have an article at all. if the argument for "orphaned articles are not a problem" is "we have people dumping tens of thousands of stub articles on us by running a script on some database somewhere", which would seem to cover three of those four articles, then the initial premise needs re-thought. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep using it the same way as always. Articles should always be linked from elsewhere, and by relegating this template to the talk page, we'd be reducing its visibility and making it less useful. Notable topics are related to other notable topics, and so down the road we will have related articles if we don't already. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_5&oldid=1138535233"