Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 20



Template:Bell System

 * 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 debate was keep, empty nomination. John254 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)



. BigDevil (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See a previous TfD on this template. –Pomte 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The arguments in February are just as relevant now. No additional eeason given. DGG (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG, with the added comment of "no additional reason given? try NO reason given." JPG-GR (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a note on the talk page of the nominator requesting some explication – he is a new user, and possibly mis-clicked using WP:TW. Otherwise, a deletion discussion without a guiding rationale is pointless. Grace notes T § 03:51, 21 December 2007 (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.

Template:Muppets

 * 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 debate was no consensus. There is no consensus of what to do with templates in this format. I cannot speak for the community, but I would prefer a plain text link like the Family Guy wiki. As for previous templates in this format - the Harry Potter wiki template had its TfD suspended due to edit warring, and a Star Trek wiki was recently deleted - not because the format of the template is wrong, but becuase the template was duplicated by a more widely used template. I'm tempted to delete this template as being relatively unused, but I think it would serve the community better to take this time to request that a consensus be formed on these templates in some place other than TfD before more of these templates are nominated. Then return, say "the consensus is for templates of this type," and all will be at peace. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete, template linking to a random wikia wiki that's masquerading as a sister project link. Plus the linked content doesn't seem useful to me in the cases I checked (it's only used on four pages). — Bobet 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it is relatively common practice to give the sister project treatment to other wikis with free content, in terms of boxes in  sections. In this case, the muppet wiki is licensed under GFDL, so it would apply. This practice is somewhat contentious: many of the templates listed at List of templates linking to other free content projects have had TFDs (and been kept). I personally don't agree with this practice, but it still is practice.  Grace notes T § 05:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A valid way to link to external wikis. Though it should really only be used on Muppet related articles. I found this on Family Guy, where it probably shouldn't be. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The deletion of FGwiki, a comparable template linking Family Guy Wiki, was recently overturned. How different is this nomination? / edg ☺ ☭ 06:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or change to a plain text link like FGwiki. As I said with a similar template, this template violates the Manual of Style on external links (before a contested change made just recently), and vaguely implies Wikia (a for-profit corporation which hosts Muppet Wiki) is a sister project of Wikipedia, which it is not.  --Phirazo 06:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline makes no comment about this (regardless of the change Phil tried to make), so no, it does not violate it. Nor does the template even mention Wikia. And why on earth would the for-profit status of an organization matter in this discussion? -- Ned Scott 06:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If the concern is about how it looks like a sister project, perhaps more can be done to help that. I remember there being a template for ELs on some anime articles that would note if a site was in English or Japanese that would go along side normal text links in the EL section. Maybe something like that, where it looks like a normal EL, but says "WIKI" beside it. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I guess you mean the templates in Category:Language icons. Anyway, no matter what the template looked like, it's still linking to content that fails wp:el, since none of the articles that are linked to contain anything useful that isn't already covered by the relevant wikipedia articles. It's just pointless linkspam that gets overlooked because it's linking to wikia. If someone cares about a muppet wiki, he'll find a link to it at the The Muppets article, but pasting a link to it on largely unrelated articles isn't very smart. - Bobet 16:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or change to a plaintext link. As I argued on an earlier TfD, templates like this unfairly place Wikis above other kinds of external links, and may mislead readers by implying that they're in some way officially linked to Wikipedia. Links to wiki sites are acceptable (with certain qualifiers, which this one meets), but they shouldn't look any different from external links to other websites. Terraxos (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the rationales for these kinds of link is that they're not functioning as a traditional EL. Basically, a utility EL, made to note any wiki EL, and to do so easily and with context (being able to not just link to the general wiki, but to specific topics as they relate to the article currently being viewed). I understand that you view this as giving one link an unfair position, but myself and others view this as simply noting an EL that has a different function than other ELs (and, again, is open to any wiki EL that meets WP:EL). -- Ned Scott 09:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, or at least modify, per Terraxos. This kind of preferential linking to non-WMF wikis is, and always has been, a bad idea. -- Visviva (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that you might feel that way, but a lot of other users don't even view this as "preferential linking" (see my comment above), nor is it the general feeling that this is a "bad idea". If it was such a bad idea, we wouldn't be using IMDb in so many infoboxes. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Users interested in this discussion are also likely to be interested in Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 17. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ned Scott and per repeated consensus on templates of this form in the past. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2007 (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.

Template:Boneheaded editing

 * 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 debate was delete before this TfD snowballs any further. Tijuana Brass (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)



Delete - No encyclopedic use, possible attack template, not neutral or particularly civil. — Cheeser1 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No use whatsoever except to possibly attack or be uncivil. Jmlk  1  7  03:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -I just figured people would know the name "bonehead" was in jest (how many people actually get offended by this?), but still get the message across without being too abrasive.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty needlessly inflammatory. GlassCobra 03:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unnecessarily inflammatory to outside users, even if it is meant in jest. Remember, sarcasm is hard to detect in text.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear irony is difficult to detect as well. This template is of course a well-intentioned joke, but the last thing we want to do is hurt the feelings of those who have worked on the article. Standard cleanup templates should be preferred in favor of this template, which is a vague laundry list of possible problems, and which should be deleted (or, if I AM JOHN SMITH wishes, userfied to a user subpage, as Nn123645 mentioned below. 'Cause it's kind of cute.) Grace notes T § 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and userify Template is kind of redundant of the cleanup templates. It is also unneutral and somewhat uncivl as Cheeser1 mentioned. WP:Civil gives the example of uncivility being judimentional tone in edit summaries (the specific example is "snipped rampling crap"). This seems to have a similar tone. I think this would be best if I AM JOHN SMITH moved it to his user space and added it possibly with an humor notice at the top. --Nn123645 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as overly derisive - non-encyclopedic. JPG-GR (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If the user wishes for this to be a joke on his own Userpage that's fine, but it's inappropriate for a template. In addition to being inflammatory, as others have noted, it's very vague and would serve no real purpose for editors. DanielEng (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: A wikiequette account can be found here.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this template has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being used or useful  Pump me  up  11:12, 20 December 2007 (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.