Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 8



Template:User burp

 * 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 procedural speedy close. Userboxes should be nominated at MfD, not TfD, regardless of namespace. NAC. I have renominated at the appropriate venue. -- N Y  Kevin  @805, i.e. 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User burp

Stupid and juvenile. Even by the loose standards of user boxes, this serves no useful purpose. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2011 (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:Personendaten1

 * 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 author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Personendaten1

Unused, apparently redundant to Persondata —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete If someone really wants to, I guess it can be userfied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I created this to assist in translation, but what is really needed is a shim table. BTW, what does userfied mean? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy essentially means "move to userspace" (move to a subpage of one's user page). — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is then English Wikipedia, not the German Wikipedia. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as Bermicourt said the template is used to help migrate content from de-WP to en-WP. How much effort would be needed here to make this a shim (so that it could be substituted to pop out a working persondata? That's definitely the right approach if Bermicourt's work is ongoing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we going to create these for every Wikipedia language variant? There's not even a substitution only banner on it. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "We" do not do batch-conversions of German articles. The editor who wrote this does. If it's kept then yes, it needs to have all the appropriate subst-only boilerplate added to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2011 (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:User morefart

 * 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 Withdrawn. Listed here by mistake. Relisted at MfD. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User morefart

Stupid and juvenile. Even by the loose standards of user boxes, this serves no useful purpose. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Will renominate this at MfD. ScottyBerg (talk)
 * 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:Familypedia

 * 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) 04:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Familypedia

Also nominating: I originally posted at wp:ELN about this template, which uses an internal linking box for linking to an external wiki. This is not allowed per External_links.
 * Template:FamilypediaPlace

The second problem and the actual reason for deletion is that the links themselves are not helpful. William_the_Conqueror is a nice example of this. I have evaluated over a dozen links, but have yet to find any that add value to the article. Also, while I believe the creator is acting in good faith, almost all of his recent contributions are additions of this template, so it could be classified as spam. Yoenit (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I later realized the link used in William_the_Conqueror is wrong, it should link to this page . Yoenit (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete both There is no reason to use a box with logo to highlight and privilege external links to a Wikia wiki, and that applies doubly when the target of the links is low value. A few links that I checked clearly failed WP:EL and should not be listed under "External links" at all, let alone using a template. Per WP:External links, these templates should not exist. Johnuniq (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I really fail to understand this. Familypedia is a sister project of Wikipedia. It crowd-sources genealogical data. The template provides a link into Familypedia. Familypedia links back into Wikipedia. What's wrong with that? Richard Tol (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Familypedia is not a wp:Wikimedia sister project, it is an external wiki. There are more than 100.000 wikis on wikia alone, should we link to all of them? I think you will agree that is not practical. So set of guidelines for external links was created. The short version is that the link needs to contain material relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject that can't be integrated in the article itself. Familypedia contains on genealogical data, but so do our articles (see for example William_the_Conqueror). The question is then, what information do these familypedia links provide to our readers that they can't obtain from the wikipedia article? Yoenit (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sole point of the link to Familypedia is that it provides information on the NON-NOTABLE ancestors and descendants of William the Conqueror etc. When reading about famous people of the past, many people wonder whether they are related. Familypedia seeks to answer that need -- Wikipedia does not. Familypedia also provides more detailed and more accessible information about the relationship between notable people. Wikipedia does not tell us, for instance, that Leo III of Armenia descends from William the Conqueror. Familypedia does. I agree that Familypedia's information is interesting to a select few only, but there additional information. Richard Tol (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He is a 12th generation decendant. Assuming for a second that information is important, how am I supposed to find it with familypedia? Leo III is not tagged as a decendant of William the conqueror, nor is he listed as a famous decendant. William the conquerors descendant tree ends with his mother and finding that already requires that you know Henri II de Champagne is part of the tree. The only reason I could confirm they were related is because genealogics.org has a relationship finder tool. That site seems to be much better overall, so if we should include an external link for genealogic information (I don't we should) it should be that site, not familypedia. Yoenit (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If a link to Genealogics is appropriate, then such a link should be included. Genealogics is the work of one man, though, whereas Familypedia is a wiki. Richard Tol (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all We use that kind of formatbox for our sisterlinks, not for unaffiliated links.Curb Chain (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We've got a strong consensus not to use the sisterlinks style for unaffiliated external sites. This can trivially be converted to an inline template using wikia if it is widely-used: otherwise, editors should simply use wikia directly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am happy to go along with that recommendation, that is, convert Familypedia and FamilypediaPlace to use wikia. Richard Tol (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does it need a template? It's just another external link and should be treated the same as others. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Templates are there for convenience. Richard Tol (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2011 (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.