Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 25
January 25
edit- 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 and remove. There is consensus that a template generating dead links is useless, and that keeping the rotted links is insufficiently useful to warrant inclusion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Template:MUNAnatomy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
About 30 transclusions. The transclusions are all dead links, so they don't work. Consequently there is no reason to include them. Therefore I propose deletion of the templates. To be explicitly clear, I am proposing that the templates are removed and that when they are removed the links are not substituted back into the articles. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete unless the articles can be recovered, somehow. The site disallowed archiving in robots.txt, so it seems unlikely to be found somewhere else. (I'm leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, just in case.) —PC-XT+ 06:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I do bit works about maintaining anatomical external link templates. This template is one of some dead link templates. I can't find new location of this template (and there are no archives of this site, as PC-XT said just above). Basic information about this template was already stored at Category talk:Anatomy external link templates. So there are no harms to delete this template, which can now provide readers only dead links. --Was a bee (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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 per nom Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article. Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- delete Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Relisted to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_3#February_3 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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 as uncontested request Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Template:H:titleS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused and redundant to Template:H:title. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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 as too broad to function as an effective navigational aid. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Redundant to already existing templates. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I tought to change it and to divide Template:Jews and Judaism into 2; Template:Jews in the world & Template:Judaism; History and Philosophy. Because it is too long, and ALSO there is a difference between Jews and Judaism.
So I'll do it the next few minutes ... and then ask for you'r help to delete that value exists: Template:Jews and Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaoXan (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are already other templates, and there is no need for this template. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There is so much information stuffed in here that's it's useless as a navigation box. Yoninah (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I know, thank, I have tried to fix so many times but someone always brings back the old and not good version of the Template... So you delete it later? because I don't know how to do that... I'll let you know here one's i'll done. DaoXan (talk
- Why don't you STOP editing, and discuss first?! Debresser (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Split into about a million templates. Honestly, both this template and the ones it is redundant to are bloated junk. There is no realistic way to expect a navigational aid to be useful when there are hundreds of links spanning a dozen topics. Resolute 18:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Debresser I'm new sorry :/ Reso you are right, but that's a start... DaoXan (talk 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Done! :-) you can DELETE the Template:Jews and Judaism, leave Template:Judaism; History and Philosophy & Template:Jews in the world
Is it OK for me to Update those 2 it the related entries, or you'll get angry on me again? :-)
DaoXan (talk 18:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- DaoXan, please discuss these templates at WT:JUDAISM first; more large templates are likely to be just as contentious. Sam Walton (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Jews in the world sounds idiotic to me. Definitely discuss at WT:JUDAISM first. Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yoninah I'm open for ideas...DaoXan (talk 19:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- DaoXan, please come to WT:JUDAISM and discuss this. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- delete Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Way too crazy long and clueless. Template creator has less than 300 edits on Wikipedia and is creating massive problematical redundant un-requested templates. The "Prominent figures" section is particularly problematical -- who in the world gets to decide who would be listed there throughout the centuries, and why in the world is a redlink there? No, this template must go. The creator could userfy it on a sandbox for possible use of some of the information some other way, but this template cannot stand. Plus the fact that he says "Done! :-) you can DELETE the Template:Jews and Judaism" proves he has delusions of grandeur and needs to refrain completely from template creation. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Just another alternative template. VandVictory (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - Split it into different templates. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - This is one of those navboxes that you know is "just plain bad" as soon as you see it, as Neutrality states in the related discussion below, even before you begin to analyze what's wrong with it. For starters, it's just too damn big, and covers too many tangentially related topics . . . a navbox that includes links to Henry Kissinger, the Spanish Inquisition, Karl Marx, Culture in Israel, Mark Zuckerberg, the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Steven Spielberg, and the History of Jews in Iceland is trying to cover too much ground. Delete it, and offer to userfy it for the creator -- and will another editor who understands well-designed navboxes offer to help and counsel the creator so we're not back here in a month reviewing something similar? A split into a half dozen different templates would be a start. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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 per above Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Same reasons as template above. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's the same length of Template:Jews and Judaism and way more Informative and focused matter..see also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism
- Delete or userfy. Un-requested, overlong, uncollaborative, and incompetent template. Same goes for all his other templates. Creator needs to refrain from posting templates himself or face a possible topic ban, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Softlavender. Creator needs to seek consensus before making drastic changes to existing templates. Yoninah (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Just plain bad. Neutralitytalk 01:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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.