Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 13



Template:Strlen

 * 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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This template is not in use anywhere (it appears to have no transclusions), and its use would presumably be a strain on the parser. Themw:Extension:StringFunctions extension, once (or if) rolled out, would replace this template. This, that and the other [ talk ] 09:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Until StringFunctions is actually released, I would have to say keep. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 02:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Clever use of {&#123;padright:}}. If StringFunctions get release then we can change the template to use that.  — Dispenser 20:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep seems useful... using the padright is like the shift function in DOS batch language to get extra parameters... 76.66.198.46 (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2008 (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:GovLinks

 * 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 --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Directly violates the external links guideline in three ways: 1) makes automatic external links which is never allowed; 2) links to search pages, which is also never allowed; 3) wikipedia is not a link farm, adds many more external links than should be the norm 2005 (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Absurd. I used CongLinks as a base for GovLinks, and no 'search pages' are included. The template creates consistency, same as CongLinks does (which I did not create, but I use). Flatterworld (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Both CongLinks and GovLinks use Project Vote Smart, On the Issues and FindAGrave. GovLinks uses FollowTheMoney, the equivalent to Open Secrets for campaign contributions for state-level offices. National Governors Association is the official association for governors. The NYT and Washington Post are the 'newspapers of record' for political news in the U.S. Flatterworld (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the fiction? You made a template that links to newspapers search results pages.  search and aggregator pages like that have been prohibited by the external links guideline for years, so the template can never be used just for that reason.  2005 (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the NYT link would work if any 'ordinary' name were substituted? Try it. Hint: there's a difference between a database key and a search. btw - what's with all the anger over a template to help Wikipedia readers learn more? That's rather the point of an encyclopedia. Flatterworld (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What anger? Your comments are not making sense now.  You link to a Washington Post search page, that brings up searches involving a person's name.  It's a dynamic page, not a static one that has been reviewed by an editor. The Times page is a less asearch page but still a dynamic page that changes all the time, meaning the actual content has not been reviewed by an editor.  Obviously that is the exact opposite of what an encyclopedia wants to do.  We aren't here for readers to "learn more",  We are an encyclopia and a lot of other stuff.  Besides that, you and your POV have randomly choosen a large number of links, including a very advertsing heavy, commercial link. 2005 (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete The template does not appear to do quite what 2005 describes above.
 * For one of the URLs included in the template to be included the adding editor must go and find the appropriate code for each website - these are not automatic links and the editor would have to have found the page and decided it merited inclusion.
 * The newspaper links are not necessarily search results. Papers like the New York Times provide focused indexes to their articles for a limited set of well known people and subjects. They aren't simply all articles that happen to mention the subject as a search result would give.
 * It does seem to encourage linking to a limited set of resources though which is not really in keeping with WP:NPOV or WP:EL -- SiobhanHansa 20:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep--Avala (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can see it is useful but it also returns dynamic content (i.e., each time one of the target web sites indexes a new article, it will appear when the WP user hits the link), so the editor can't really be sure what the link will return next time it is used. The nature of the sources means the content will probably be fine, but it might not be - should the risk be taken? Undecided. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why we have a guideline that says not to ever have such links. It's a slippery slope, once you have such links in this case, someone could add more marginal ones elsewhere and on and on. 2005 (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is surreal. Every link in w:Category:People and person external link templates and others would fall into this. Link to an official biography? Presumably it's updated and somehing 'new' could be added. IMDb - new performances could be added. And so forth and so on. That's the point of why we should use such links, not an argument against using them. Beyond that, I find your argument that we should have no template for U.S. Governors quite strange. I see you edit gambling articles, and perhaps your reasoning applies to those, but this is a template regarding state officials. Flatterworld (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Surreal? Whya re you being deliberately obtuse? If you don't understand the obvious difference between how an official website might change, and how a newspaper publishes hundreds of articles a day, good luck getting through life.  Still, this is not even an issue.  There is a consensus already.  WP:EL.  It states official websites should be linked to, and search aggregator pages should not.  Period.  Please read the guideline and if you want to change the longstanding consensus on these issue, take it up there.  2005 (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2008 (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:Howtogetbanned2

 * 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 G4 speedily deleted --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We're striving to create a serious encyclopedia. Linking to Uncyclopedia undermines these efforts. That and there's no reason whatsoever to link to that website. The name suggests that the editor who created this knew that it was inappropriate. faithless  (speak)  04:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Listed for speedy deletion - Under the db-G4 rationale. See Templates_for_deletion -- Flewis (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2008 (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:Howtogetbanned

 * 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 G4 speedily deleted --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We're striving to create a serious encyclopedia. Linking to Uncyclopedia undermines these efforts. That and there's no reason whatsoever to link to that website. The name suggests that the editor who created this knew that it was inappropriate. faithless  (speak)  04:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Listed for speedy deletion - Under the db-G4 rationale. See Templates_for_deletion -- Flewis (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2008 (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:Needinfobox

 * 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. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)



Another example of excessive tagging. Our readers do not need to see this at the top of pages when looking for information on a topic of interest. WikiProjects already have templates that deal with the need for infoboxes - on article talkpages, where such templates belong (example). The benefits of editors fulfilling the template's request do not outweigh the disfigurement of articles and the distraction of readers. Example of template use: Badminton player  the skomorokh  02:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This thing that I can't understand is, if you're willing to add this template to an article, why not add the infobox!? It isn't that much more complicated. Absolutely pointless. faithless   (speak)  04:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Klein zach  04:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people are horrible at adding infoboxen, though. They just slap it up and fill in maybe two fields. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unhelpful clutter. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. We already have Reqinfobox for talk pages, which is where this sort of request belongs. PC78 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Didn't know about reqinfobox, to which this is redundant. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete just plain silly... comments about articles (including what articles need) belong on the talk page. And this is a duplicate, and I believe infoboxneeded was deleted some time ago. --Rividian (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2008 (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.