Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 5

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

October 5


Template:EngvarB

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) 17:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely needless given existing Template:Use British English on pages and Template:British English on talk pages, so there's that. Further, no evidence whatsoever that Ohcon or other users are checking edit histories to ensure that pages are actually (per WP:ENGVAR) properly or by consensus considered British English. No evidence whatsoever that pages with American English are being similarly formatted or protected via bot. In at least one case (Pippa Passes) the current method of inclusion of the template produces unsightly white spacing at the top of the articles.  — LlywelynII 06:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can confirm that pages with American English are not being similarly formatted, but so what?
    WP:TIES – initially British, Australian, NZ, Irish, Scottish, Indian, South African. The EngvarB template is conceived to be nationality-neutral, and allows a generic templating that upsets few – as opposed to broadly applying {{use British English}} to articles about Irish etc subjects – which can understandably provoke nationalistic sensitivities although none are intended. The "unsightly white spacing at the top of the articles" seems to be a technical constraint with hidden templates in general and does not affect only this one, otherwise all hidden templates would need deletion. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Could the same tracking be done by adding a second parameter to {{Use British English}} and its cousins? Something like {{Use British English|date=June 2010|last_checked=September 2013}}. Have I understood the purpose of {{EngvarB}}? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been contemplating evolving the template and the related work for some time, but want to get the work done whilst avoiding complication. Of course we can always add a parameter to the template, if we find a good use for same. At present, when the script passes, it would simply change {{Use British English|date=June 2010}} to {{Use British English|date=September 2013}} because nobody has found any advantage of keeping the 'June 2010' date. Maybe in time, WP can move to International English. But you would think that there is a huge cultural trench where lies the Atlantic that bodes ill for universal application of IE if you read all the comments on WT:MOS and my talk page about national variants of English (or date formats). -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This project is unnecessary, appears US-biased and could provoke divisiveness. We already have guidelines on ENGVAR that work well. Labelling an article as "British English" places decision before discussion, over-emphasizes ENGVAR issues and is likely to provoke division. The project is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't take account of the most common variant - International English (e.g. see the Oxford Dictionary of English) - and appears to give special status to US English pages as the dominant form. In fact the main corpus of the English language is International English, with the others (US, Canadian, British, Australian, Indian, Irish, etc.) being important regional variants. Bermicourt (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ohc. I don't know how widespread the concept of International English is, but the New Oxford Dictionary of English views English as a world language. To that end they employed around 70 editors and consultants from all over the English speaking world including e.g. 18 US consultants, 8 Indian English consultants and so on. In practice, words that are common to all or most regions are considered "international", words that are mainly used in just one or two regions are specifically annotated as such. This seems a smart approach which Wikipedia could adopt, provided we can agree on which dictionary or dictionaries are authoritative. There will probably be US objections if we only use the ODE as it may be seen (wrongly) as a British source, but if there were a leading US dictionary that used the "international" approach, we might find it easier to gain acceptance. Bermicourt (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "International English" has not been established on the Wikipedia MoS; that requires a change through discussion at
    MoS. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, deleting templates will not make such MoS changes happen. Dl2000 (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment The template does not show up as text, therefore no message is displayed. And who says that
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY)? Dl2000 (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Am I wrong that this template places the article in the copyedit category? That's what adds apparent work to the
WP:GOCE.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment The documentation could be clearer, but as you've mentioned this is not a cleanup request template as such and could be exempt from a copyedit category (or add a category to indicate GOCE-exempt templates such as this). In any case, deleting the template entirely is overkill (
WP:GOCE should recruit a larger labour pool? Dl2000 (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The documented purpose of this template is "to denote articles which have non-American English spelling." Rather than use a negative template, which is being applied by bot rather than intelligence, articles in this wiki should be positively labelled "Use xxxxx English" if assessed as such, or if not assessed, left unmarked. Certainly this template and "Use xxxxx English" should be mutually exclusive. Stanning (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A deletion of this template will result in existing articles having {{DMCA|EngvarB|from|{{{date|}}}}} subst'd in and the longer form used by anyone adding it in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be happier with its continuance if there was also another mutually-exclusive template that indicated articles that have American-English spelling. While there is no suggestion of discrimination here it may, in the long term, be used as a precedent for other less-neutral templates. In short every article should have a preferred spelling flag or none should. S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now until the logic and neutrality are sorted out. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
trash Redundant You already !voted. Dl2000 (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I see no good reasons offered in this thread for changing the status quo. The template serves a useful purpose and is not American- or British-biased. (In addition, please let's not have a proliferation of other variety templates ... on that I agree with Ohconfucius.) Tony (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I came across this template and mistook the B to mean British, OhConfuscius has informed me that I was incorrect (I was). If the template EngvarLocal or EngvarNot instead this would cause less confusion and show it is a useful template. Murry1975 (talk) 12:52, 14 October 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:Bahram Rajabi

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; deleted as

G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Bahram Rajabi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is just a new user's test edit. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:47, 5 October 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:IMDb name

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 an overwhelming consensus. While some might object that the arguments for deleting the template were more strongly policy-based, and that "consensus cannot override policy", the discussion strongly suggests (IMO) that the policy concerns, while reasonable, are not so cut-and-dried as to justify ignoring a strong consensus to keep the template. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IMDb name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:IMDb bio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Withdrawn- This template basically violates the

message me! 16:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree for the above reasons for IMDb bio - there is no need for that template.
Add - it is currently used in 3 articles. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subtract - it is now unused, see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree for "IMDb name" per
    WP:ELPEREN#IMDb. Also this template is currently close to universally used in actor articles and IMDb is the convenience source implicitly used for actor completed project credits in wiki articles already. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The key phrase of
message me! 18:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Template was created in 2004, it is trancluded in 88662 articles and is indefinitely protected as a high-risk template. Removing this template would cause a major disruption to the project. IMDb is effectively a peer wiki and has a similar level of reliability as wiki itself. As long as we don't use it as a reliable source, which is currently prohibited, it provides a sufficient amount of additional "neutral and accurate" info that cannot be included in wiki. Since IMDb is not a valid reference, any info included in a bio article body itself that is derived from IMDb can and should be deleted on sight. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep unless removal is accompanied by blacklisting these sites after a specific RFC to do so. This site will continue to be used with or without the template. On a related matter, I would be strongly against blacklisting the site. While useless for determining notability it is useful for other things. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (template IMDb name per Davidwr) and Delete (template IMDb bio). --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 19:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMDb name - useful template for a widely used site. No harm. Delete or redirect IMDb bio - useless. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. First of all, as davidwr points out above, if you want to stop all links to imdb.com, then that requires an RfC. Setting that aside, though, this template isn't being used to cite IMDb as a source; it's just being used as an external link, and there's no requirement that exlinks be to non-user-generated sites. In fact, we have
    (Je vous invite à me parler) 19:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

You four @
message me! 22:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
So if it's BLP you're concerned about... what about actors/actresses who are deceased? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this relevant question --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 22:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be open to it still being used in biographies of deceased people, if it is really that necessary, as they are not as held up to a verifiability standard as BLPs. That is my concern, the verifiability of biographies of living people. I also assume biographies of (not recently) deceased people on Wiki and IMDb are not as open to dubious or factually incorrect content.
message me! 23:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Strong and True Verifiability?! @
STATicVerseatide: In that case we must allow link to facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc. as truly sources because some person speaks about self so no have any problem with any law!! It's nonsense!! On other hands, too many personal pages from mentioned sites and too many pages on IMDb are fulfilled with REALLY TRUE information!! --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 23:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry, the only nonsense was your response, I do not understand a single thing you are trying to say. We only link to official verified Facebook and Twitter accounts, and then those can only be used for announcements. "Really true information", the biographies that look like they were written by Middle Schoolers speak for themselves. You have to remember this in an encyclopedia not a
message me! 23:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Can't understand anything? Strange! IMDb in most cases is
WP:BLP policy as you say. In any case, I'm voted, so sub-discussion - COMPLETED!! --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 00:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
From the way you type, I would be surprised if anyone could. Whether you think it is "completed" or not, it just proves that I successfully countered all your points. The claim of it being a primary or secondary source is just incorrect and unfounded,
message me! 00:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I get it. But this TfD is about deleting the template, not about deleting the ability of people to use IMBd.com as a reference. Those are two totally different questions. The second question needs to be discussed in an RFC, preferably as a
centralized discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC) rephrased below, "discussing" instead of "deleting"[reply
]
It is about discussing the template as the page is called "Templates for discussion", not deleting it. I am sure most of the "strong keep" votes, were due to some users seeing the template, next to the template on articles, and thinking
message me! 00:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I get it. But this TfD is about discussing the template, not about discussing the ability of people to use IMBd.com as a reference. Those are two totally different questions. The second question needs to be discussed in an RFC, preferably as a
centralized discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay do not start with the accusations, this nomination is based on holding up the reliability and integrity of the encyclopedia and
message me! 22:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay I haven't and won't, just airing my opinions and observations, just as you are entitled to do however by the looks of it they are overwhelmingly not shared. Tanbircdq (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information Template:IMDb bio informally deprecated and no longer in use. At the conclusion of this TfD, please place {{Db-deprecated}} on it then delete it a week later. Given that Db-deprecated is a "slow, 7-day speedy deletion," I think it's bad form to have the speedy up for 7 days concurrent with this TfD. I've put up a temporary "this template is deprecated" sign at the top. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for both. I cannot see any reason why a site crammed with tons of info and rumours which, in most cases, cannot be confirmed by a reliable source needs to be present in any way on an online encyclopaedia which claims to be trying to be high-quality; it's just like the argument over whether Wikipedia should be free to edit without registration or not: even if editing was restricted to registered editors, tons of original research, personal opinions, speculation, unencyclopaedic trivia, etc. would still be massively and (most importantly) uncontrollably introduced to Wikipedia on a daily basis for eternity. Wikipedia is and will never cease to be largely freaky unreliable under any circumstances, as long as it's free, it's been doomed from the very moment of its creation, as have all sites with user-contributed content. It's a cycle. Universities don't accept it, seeing it as a joke, as a reliable source of info for whatever kind of assignment and that's also a widely common belief in the general population. The only thing that can be done is just lessen (?!) the immense amount of harm done, by solely allowing registered editors to edit and excluding external linking to joke sites like IMDb. An apocalyptic doomsday theory, but unfortunately corresponding to reality, I'm very afraid.
    talk) 21:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Question @
Hula Hup: Wikipedia as IMDb is the site with user-contributed content, so after that Wikipedia is a place of joke sites like IMDb due to analogy? Seems you are wrong. Problem lies in two parts: a. notability (in that case every editor have his own opinion and propose for deleting discussed only by a few editors without any simple readers so...) and b. reliability (in that case Wikipedia is equal to IMDb due to user-contributed content or anybody checking links in refs??). --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 23:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia is maybe a little better than IMDb because of the refs, but is still largely junk and in no case a wholly serious source of info. On the reliability part, I think that the inclusion of refs on Wikipedia doesn't make much of a difference, as they're very frequently wrongly used by editors: misinterpretation of meaning, original synthesis, addition of not supported info based on alleged hints in sources (e.g. the faded silhouette teased in the official trailer/plot synopsis published on the official site is extremely similar to character X, so character X will appear in the film/game), addition of unreliable sources, and the list of disgusting methods of ruining the project goes on forever. I personally edit Wikipedia because I love writing and in a try to make the articles I touch as less mediocre as possible (even featured articles eventually become just OK due to editors [especially, but not always, unregistered ones] ruining the content and sometimes also the structure). R.I.P. Wikipedia.
talk) 00:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Good spiel, but how about sticking to the topic rather than going off on a tangent. Tanbircdq (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like it here,
(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Frankly, in my opinion if an article on a biography of a living person does not have any references to
message me! 22:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
or use {{BLP IMDb-only refimprove}} Christian75 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This is a place to discuss deletion of the template, not if the link should be there or not. If the template is deleted, it should be substituted with a normal external link. Christian75 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the name of this section? Templates for discussion not Templates for deletion.
message me! 23:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
But the deletion of the template is a policy question. It would be strange to delete all links to imdb which use the template, but allow normal links to imdb....Christian75 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The vast majority of the time, the credits listed on a person's IMDb page are accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. At IMDb they're very careful: if a user-generated credit does not convince them, they refuse to publish it. . - --Carpenter aka (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The positions given here seem to be influenced by positions on IMDB as a source, but that should not translate into the exact same position on IMDB as an external link, since Wikipedia's requirements for reliability are not the same. Per
    WP:ELPEREN#IMDb IMDB appears to be acceptable. Therefore, it is reasonable to have a template for it, since templates makes listing it easier. Nightscream (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I probably should have just gone to
message me! 00:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strong keep. In the history of ludicrous suggestions, this one reigns supreme. 99.247.1.157 (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@
message me! 03:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I consider "fanboys" an immature and hypocritical term to use by the nominator of this TfD and best avoided given that you consider this template "unprofessional" – I equally consider such terms unprofessional and contrary to
WP:AGF. Ignoring your cherry-picked replies to only a a few of the weaker "keeps", I think it's only fair to say that whether your TfD succeeds or not, you don't win medals or popularity awards for such bold nominations, and should "fanboys" prevail, it's a community consensus, not a cultist uprising against you personally. Also not sure how you dare criticise everyone for using "strong keep" whilst ignoring the "Strong Strong Strong Strong Delete" you replied to here. Such remarks only detract from the TfD spirit rather than add to it. You might want to consider taking a less aggressive response towards deletion requests in future and just letting the !votes flow without commenting obsessively, as such an attitude tends to promote more interest and work against you. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry I do not live on Wikipedia, and did not have time to reply to your unnecessary "strong keep" and uncalled for
message me! 05:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Uncalled for? At the time of my !vote there were 13 keeps to 1 delete and even that was more of an off-topic rant about enforcing registration than IMDB links. At is stands now, there are 26 keeps and 2 deletes. I realise !votes also require a good argument, but I don't see the closer of this TfD going with those 2, personally. I also note that your talk page includes numerous rebukes for your "fanboys" remark. You might try applying some modest accountability for your comments instead of the stubborn defensive attitude you seem to have taken instead, in light of the objections to this TfD and your passive aggressive remarks against the "keeps". You can't win 'em all. I also very much doubt that you had a reasonable counter-argument to contradict my !vote anyway. You do realise "strong" has been used in !votes across Wiki for years, don't you..? Nothing new there, so your manner of taking them personally somewhat relates more to
WP:IJDLI or WP:DIVA: "Consensus is flawed". Ma®©usBritish{chat} 09:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
See
message me! 03:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: I notified
WP:EL board of this discussion, so no need to take this discussion anywhere else. Let it conclude here, and that will establish the current consensus. However, I would point you to the WP:EL perennial websites board, as it turns out, IMDB has already been discussed there, again and again and again, and no-one has put it on the list of links that should never be permitted (instead, it's argued it should not be used as a RS.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
But we link to all sorts of non-RS in the external links section. For example, www.ibm.com is not a reliable source w.r.t the quality of their products or how the wider world views IBM products, but we have no fear in such a link. Also, personal websites of entertainer X are not realiable for the many claims about entertainer X, and yet, we link away.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL makes specific provision for official sites. and I have referred to them in my previous comments. But contrary to what some may want, the EL section isn't meant to be the repository for linkspam either. Having one individual official link does not imply endorsement, transclusion in 88662 articles makes this a mighty big elephant in the room. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's link spam, I think it's a useful link for the reader to one of the most comprehensive sites on the internet with information about actors. Yes, it's not all correct/accurate, but neither is wikipedia. In any case, if we delete this template, users can just link to it directly, and then we'd have trouble even monitoring how many and which sites are linking to imdb...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BTW since we are all unpaid volunteers there are no professional editors here. MarnetteD | Talk 03:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The credit lists at IMDB may be user-provided (or in some cases production-provided), but as a rule they do indeed tend to be accurate and neutral, drawn directly from on-screen information. It's a high visibility and professionally-important site, where there is an incentive for errors to get corrected. The detailed cross-referenced listings of productions are highly relevant for readers interested in actors and what work they have done and who they have worked with, and are detailed and systematised to a level that goes far beyond what we would aim to provide here. I do not believe there is any significant widespread evidence of BLP problems with this site. This nomination therefore seems to me to be misplaced, a result of somebody with too much time on their hands taking too rigid and mechanistic an approach to WP rules and rule-making, rather than a broader-based assessment of encyclopedic value, utility to our readers, and actual evidence of BLP risk. Jheald (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if the reliable sources are using, or reporting on IMDb, I see no reason to delete a template that belongs in the External links section. (I've found that IMDb has useful legacy information for obscure film awards and nominations, that many film festivals don't bother to maintain, but I don't dare use them, even as a hard-data reference.)009o9 (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being an actual IMDb Contributor, i can honestly say that IMDb has improved a lot over the last 18 months and is now very much a reliable source than say 2 years ago..all updates now go through paid staff members who doublecheck before each "submission" is approved...and yes IMDbPro is a much more reliable form of submitting and resourcing data....--Stemoc (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The external link is useful for the very reason that we can't use imdb as a sourcr. It allows readers of cinema articles to browse full filmographies and access tings on imdb which we don't offer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: IMDb is not without flaws, but is the most reliable source on the web for film and TV production credits. Everyone But You (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The bottom of every wikipedia page for a TV or film actor is being made to look weird, because of an obviusly spurious TfD nomination. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would personally like to thank all of you for your overwhelmingly
    message me! 16:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would personally like to thank all of you for your overwhelmingly
civil responses [sarcasm]. ... I would like to again laugh at everyone... Nice. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry, but what do you expect? If you had mud thrown at you for an idea that you thought was helpful, you would not be in the brightest, most happy mood. But for the record I was not talking about you Taylor in the slightest, along with a few others that were actually respectful and willing to discuss.
message me! 16:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You should have raised a discussion the talkpage of the template in that case. But, of course, you knew that /sarcasm. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - least worst solution to prevent excessively long entries from fans of those concerned S a g a C i t y (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ImDB is not reliable but more than that, it's often wrong, incomplete or misleading. Wikipedia editors ought not be directing wikipedia readers there for any reason. David in DC (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"but more than that, it's often wrong, incomplete or misleading" Unlike Wikipedia... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone saying Wikipedia is "wrong, incomplete or misleading" is not doing their job right. We all have accounts for a reason, to improve it not complain about it.
message me! 18:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
But it is incomplete, so I guess you're not doing your job right. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:46, 6 October 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:ODE software

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) 01:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ODE software (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was only used in one place: in Ordinary differential equation. I merged its content to that page, and I don't believe the content is substantial enough for preservation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template with no use and no obvious potential uses. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
talk) 22:56, 8 October 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:Infobox National Polytechnic Institute school

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) 02:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox National Polytechnic Institute school (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Transcluded on three pages but all fields are blank in all instances (see example). If necessary, Template:Infobox university can be used instead. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
talk) 23:11, 8 October 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:Infobox Moldova wine region

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) 02:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Moldova wine region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Four transclusions, Template:Infobox wine region can be used for any country. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
talk) 22:56, 8 October 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:Infobox Hong Kong new town

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) 01:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hong Kong new town (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaced with Infobox settlement here. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:01, 5 October 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_October_5&oldid=1140678221"