Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 27

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from talkpage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template that is almost never used, but could 'virtually' be used for any of the thousands of talk redirects along redirects. So it serves no useful purpose. Nominated with the attached Category:Redirects from other talkpage. Cenarium (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My original opinion was weak keep template and category, but do not use where there is a corresponding article redirect. It is valid and useful (if slightly confusing) to redirect Talk:List of words having different meanings in British and American English: M–Z to Talk:List of words having different meanings in British and American English: A–L so that we can discuss the two related articles on one shared talk page. It may be useful to maintain a category to keep track of such shared talk pages, and a template is the usual way to do that for redirections. (I'll be happy to change my opinion if there's a better way to achieve this.) It is less sensible to add {{R from talkpage}} to Talk:Christ Jesus, which is a redirect to Talk:Jesus simply because Christ Jesus is a redirect to Jesus in article space. I would remove the template in the latter case. Certes (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, a new name like {{R to shared talkpage}} would be more descriptive and might discourage incorrect usage, so perhaps my previous comment counts as a delete and start again. Certes (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's clear that some people have chosen to use it without understanding its purpose. It's for talk page redirects where the main page is not itself a redirect. Potentially confusing, but it keeps discussion of similar pages centralized. Unfortunately the name of the template doesn't make its intent clear, so there are a few cases where the template's been incorrectly applied. Reach Out to the Truth 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can be corrected as noted above, otherwise it is barely used. -- œ^™ 06:22, 6 December 2009 (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.

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. delldot ∇. 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BMW tuners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useful as a category but as the tuning industry for BMWs is huge, there will be too many to list here, making it an indiscriminate list, therefore this will tell you why a category is more useful than this, hence the nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete More useful as a category. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:29, 4 December 2009 (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.

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) 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inappropriate. The elements of this template are: people (creators and cast) and a song that it's related to the series only because is the music theme of it. Magioladitis (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Use of such a template creates undue weight on a specific role over all others. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2009 (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.

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) 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Worst Week (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consists only of 3 articles that are well linked to each other. The rest is cast and there is a strong consensus that actors should not be in templates like that. Magioladitis (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cast members are just padding. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: I personally prefer to have the links in one page--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Use of such a template creates undue weight on a specific role over all others. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2009 (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.

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) 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consists only of 2 articles that they are well-linked to each other. The rest is cast and it's a strong consensus that actors should not be linked with templates like that. Magioladitis (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cast members are just padding. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Use of such a template creates undue weight on a specific role over all others. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2009 (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.

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) 16:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Depending on 2 lists of episodes which are all redirects Magioladitis (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - needless and pointless redirect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2009 (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.

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) 16:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox My Name Is Earl season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox My Name Is Earl season 2 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Yet another list of episodes which are all redirects. Magioladitis (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - needless and pointless redirect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2009 (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.

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 by Tanthalas39 at MFD.  Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-falsep4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-falsep4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-falsep3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-falsep2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-falsep1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no prohibition on redlinks, actually quite the contrary they are very useful. Adam in MO Talk 02:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a bit scary since a good portion of links on sites are red. I don't even think there is a way to patrol this since one would have to sit on the recent changes page and scare the editors by placing the template. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and the others I thought about nominating these myself. The poor grammar can be corrected; the erroneous assumption that adding a link to a page that doesn't exist is a bad thing that can lead to blocks cannot be corrected, however. If someone is adding redlinks to, e.g., the "See also" section, that requires a hand-crafted message, not boilerplate text. Bencherlite^Talk 06:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this and the related templates below under WP:T2: 'unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy.' Robofish (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's nothing inherently wrong with red links. Reach Out to the Truth 19:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, Pages consisting of redlinks are unhelpful to readers. Red links in articles do not add content or meaning to the encyclopedia and detract from the quality of the page. Wikipedia currently has 3,108,266 articles, perhaps redlinking in the early years of the project was needed as there were very few articles. Writing the article first is a prefered means of building actual content.--Hu12 (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete created by a user who was rejected for adminship, has less than 500 edits, and has only been a user for 4 months; template is not supported by a linked to policy, nor does a policy link to it. 76.66.197.250 (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We should politely guide editors who create numerous inappropriate redlinks, e.g. to every level of obscure video games. However, this template gives the wrong message: that all redlinks are intrinsically worse than no link at all. Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery and others have created thousands of useful, working blue links using based on helpful redlinks. Certes (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No particular opinion here, but I have removed the debates for the lower levels, and added them above. The following comment was left in the level 1 template only:

• Speedy T2 76.230.214.29 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All other comments were either direct copies of those here, or "see above" type remarks. I shall adjust the TfD notices on the templates themselves shortly. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as used for enforcing a nonexistent policy. We may discuss somewhere else which approach should be used with red links or if the current one needs fixing; but in the meantime templates for user talk page messages must be based on existing policies or guidelines or actions already considered a violation of them. MBelgrano (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - There is no policy on red links. December21st2012Freak (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - These messages give the totally false impression that all redlinks are forbidden. 86.138.105.112 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Definitely not in accordance with WP:REDLINK. Some red linking is very useful. Fences&Windows 19:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Removing plausible redlinks is problematic; adding them is not. I believe FAC, which decides what's considered our best content, has no requirement candidates purge redlinks either; sure if a linked article already exists so much the better, but redlinks aren't verboten. As for the WP:WTAF page the admin above brought up, it might be better as a userspace rather than projectspace essay. As well, there's no prohibition of essays on opinions, even fringe ones. If it's giving rise to belief valid redlinking is unacceptable despite principles that enjoy wide support endorsing such wikifying though, somebody may wish to nominate it at WP:MFD. Either way, the templates should go. –Whitehorse1 20:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Red links are the building blocks of this encyclopedia. Powers ^T 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. User warning templates that misrepresent policy/guidelines are entirely inappropriate. WP:RED is a guideline; WP:WTAF is just an essay. Users are not blocked for failing to follow the suggestions of non-guideline essays, no matter what these templates say. --RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Red links are not only encouraged in some situations, but are easily created accidentally. Could you imagine template This is the only warning you will receive. You will be blocked immediately if you misspell "receive" again.? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 00:10, 30 November 2009 (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.

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD T2 and T3. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

OR - only used for a series of "vanity" edits by User:Apalofficial - all redlinks Skier Dude (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Navboxes need actual articles to provide navigation, but this is all redlinks. --RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2009 (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.