Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 14



Template:Monograph of living chitons

 * 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) 04:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Monograph of living chitons

Citation that is essentially hardcoded text that was on three pages. Now orphaned and unused. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete --Netoholic @ 03:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2014 (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:Disused-stations

 * 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Disused-stations
 * Disused-stations/doc

This is substantively the same as using Template:Subbrit but with a less obvious template name. I question whether it qualifies as a WP:RS generally here but it's only used on one article as an external link (versus the website's use in the other template as a reference). While I'm not certain it's could be a reliable link overall, at the very least it violates WP:ELNEVER given the extensive admitted use of copyrighted materials (pictures, maps, etc.). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to . Regarding the "extensive admitted use of copyrighted materials", the only current transclusion of this page is on Barton Moss railway station, and when I follow the link I find three photos and two maps. The three photos are all credited to Bevan Price, who is one of the two coauthors of the linked page; I don't believe that this is a copyvio. Both of the maps are Ordnance Survey, which are dated 1849 and 1952. OS maps are Crown Copyright (50 years from date of publication), so copyright expired in 1899 and 2002 respectively, so again, not a copyvio. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot it's 50 years in the UK, ignore that comment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No objections to a merge under a sensible name. The site in some places contains primary (original) research, which is why it's an external link and not a citation template.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, it's only used one as an external link. It's main use is as a citation template. See my discussion at WP:RSN because the portion that it is used for (namely, when stations closed) is a pretty odd reason to use that since that's like one of the few things they aren't good sources for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (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:Last Kings Entertainment

 * 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) 04:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Last Kings Entertainment

WP:NENAN. Not even the record label it is navigating has an article due to lack of notability. STATic message me!   21:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, is there not a CSD criteria for something like this? Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 23:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. On top of that it only links to two articles and it does that over and over again which isn't useful. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - "Last Kings Entertainment" doesn't even have own article and most links are red so thus this template us useless. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  17:50, 15 June 2014 (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:Orphan

 * 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 Keep. Closing this early, as the overwhelming consensus here is for the template to be retained. Discussion regarding concerns or how to improve the template can always continue on its talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 09:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Orphan

There is no consensus for the use of this tag and a considerable consensus that it should not be placed upon articles in its current form. There seem to be technical difficulties in getting anything done about this so I suggest that it be deleted or blanked in the meantime. I would edit the thing myself but it is protected. This has also prevented me from placing a deletion tag upon it. Andrew (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew what do you mean there is no consensus to use this? Do you have a link for that? I think you misinterpreted the current consensus. I suggest speedy keep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What on Earth. If the nominator isn't capable of properly elucidating the rationale here then this should be quickly closed and said editor strongly advised not to waste the community's time with spurious XfDs in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have put a link to a relevant RfC in the nomination. There is further extensive discussion on the template's talk page.  The matter seems to be stalled because the template is protected.  As this is "templates for discussion", this seems to be the right place to get some action. Andrew (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew no it's not. The template is treated OK per consensus. It is invisible as a sole template and visible inside Multiple issues. There is no consensus not to track orphan pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Invisible? It seemed quite visible in recent cases such as this.  Please explain what you mean by "invisible as a sole template". Andrew (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have went ahead and placed the Tfd template on Orphan. For future reference, if you want to nominate a protected template for WP:TFD, please use the Edit protected or Edit template-protected template (depending on the type of protection used) on the template's talk page. Steel1943  (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep There is plenty of consensus already this template shouldn't be deleted, and I had thought that  had made it invisible to everyone except those that explicitly wanted to see it (which is why I stopped following it). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm here because I keep seeing it. It is not invisible to me. Andrew (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss technical issues. It is invisible for me too. Btw, visibility should not be a valid reason for deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Technical 13 and Magioladitis, look at the example of the template being visible in Laws of infernal dynamics. Looks like it as least still visible if it is transcluded in the Multiple issues template. Steel1943  (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * exactly it is visible inside Multiple issues only. This is the current consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. (I have no opinion in this either way; thanks for clarifying current consensus.) Steel1943  (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it is still very visible to me when placed as a sole template, as well in multiple issues, and so something is broken. Andrew (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's visible as a sole template only if the date is within the last two months. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  20:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Prefect. I did not know that. I agree. Still not the place to clarify this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that was the consensus of Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_109 although it was never technically closed as such (which I'll do now). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In that discussion, Technical 13 states "the current consensus is that the tag should never be seen by anyone unless they specifically want to see it". This does not seem to be what has been implemented.  Please remove the two month period of visibility, for which there is no consensus. Andrew (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew this is an off-topic discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * lol, selective reading much? I (Technical 13 that you're quoting) concur that the two months is appropriate and inside of multiple issues is appropriate.  Further, you don't have to see it if you don't want to...  Simply add:


 * to your css page and they will all go away which satisfies my above (manipulated) comment. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 21:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Having established the facts of the matter above, and for avoidance of doubt, my proposition is that this template be deleted. It is is more trouble than it is worth and the repeated attempts to make it go away in various ways seem to have failed so that it is still being displayed in a huge banner on the top of recent articles.  We need to put a stake through the heart of this thing so that it will bother us no more. Andrew (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK on the ground of this discussion and per long-standing consensus I oppose any deletion. The reason to make it go away because some people do not like tags on pages is against my view about Wikipedia where everyone is a potential editor. If we want to increase connectivity between pages we need to start connecting pages to each other and ask the community to do so. Tags was always the way to do it because Wikipedia is always under construction and this is the good thing about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I 've been working with orphan pages for a long time and I fail to see how removing tracking categories and tags from thousands of pages will benefit the project other than abandoning any effort to work with orphan pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as this is used pretty much everywhere there's an orphan on Wikipedia, which implies significant consensus. I try a lot to de-orphan significant amounts of articles, and in fact, the orphaned articles can be tagged with a multitude of speedy deletion tags. I can't easily find orphaned articles without this tag, as it is easily usable in NPP through Twinkle. Even if you don't use Twinkle, it is still easy than copying and pasting multiple categories into an article when a template would do the exact same thing. A very useful template, if you ask me. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The template is (1) not useful and (2) annoying (this does seem to be the consensus). People continue to slap it all over though &mdash;just because it exists. If a tag exists, it will be used. If I were to create the tag notperfect ("This article is not perfect and could possible be improved") today, industrious AWB users would have spread it to half the wiki by tomorrow. The root of the problem is that this template exists, so go to the root and cut it out. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 22:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Antrocent it is not useful to know which pages are not linked from any other page? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And no it's not like that. I was in favour or deleting Expand with the prerequisite that we create more straightforward tags. Orphan is straightforward. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BTW because newbies often create articles without bothering to link them from anywhere else. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The discussion linked above is not the only one. There is also Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_109. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment One more argument for keeping is that: Consensus is to tag orphan pages and any change to that can't be decided on a TfD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Examples It may be helpful to have examples of articles of different ages to show the current template in action:
 * Sidney Kennon
 * Tirril Brewery
 * Andrew (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * keep. The considerable consensus was for it to be moved, and various proposals since have not gained anywhere near enough consensus to overturn that, so it should still be moved. Unclear why that has not happened, perhaps it could be addressed after this is closed. But in the interim keep.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Andrew, I see that you just created the biography Keith Martin (ophthalmologist) and were upset when someone quickly tagged it as an orphan with AWB. As it was necessary to parenthetically disambiguate the name, you should have realized a link needed to be added to Keith Martin as well—I did that for you. Rather than go to the trouble of proposing the deletion of this template, wouldn't it have been easier to add a link to List of University of Cambridge members? Please do that, thanks. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I implemented the technical solution of automatically hiding the template after at most two months had passed; see the template documentation for details. I feel that met the spirit of the consensus of the original request for comment. There have been only limited objections to my solution; see template talk:Orphan for the local consensus. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - It appears that the nominator didn't read the documentation at Template:Orphan before creating this TfD, which clearly states when the template is visible. It also appears that the nominator did not make any attempt to discuss the change to the template's visibility on Template talk:Orphan.  GoingBatty (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is one of the clean-up templates that is very effective. It is crazy how we have lost so many of the main clean-up templates, and lost track of the work that needs doing.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Weak delete - The template is being used incorrectly on many occasions while in some other it is being used as a bad badge. Many times it is being placed on articles that are intended to be orphans, such as companies and corporations. Dmatteng (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I fail to see why you wouldn't want pages to be interlinked on Wikipedia, it's the whole point of having a website. As pages that are not linked to can be automatically scanned for, it should eb a simple matter to fix this issue, by using list articles, indexes, Outlines, and such. If nothing truly can link to the article, then what is it that is so separate from the rest of human knowledge that nothing links to it? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - I never get why some people are opposed to this tag, it is one of the most non-controversial and highly important tag. When you create article you have to confirm the notability, but after adding it to wikipedia you have to affirm that this subject had/has any importance. I have actually investigated the pages that had orphan tag for ages. It took me just 25 seconds to solve each of them, and I've done that manually. I don't see any reasons that why the template should be delete. We should take benefit of it.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as a key method of promoting links between articles. Wikipedia doesn't work without links. (Yes, lots of my articles get tagged as orphaned) Stuartyeates (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - I do not get the opposition to this tag, its highly useful, no more annoying than any other tag, and if it didn't exist I doubt many orphan articles would ever get fixed. JTdale   Talk 12:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep used, useful, placed by Twinkle, Placed by WP:AFC and plain silly to consider deleting. Fiddle   Faddle  12:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There are 120,000+ articles with this pointless tag on them. Some of them go back nearly 7 years. So what if it's orphaned? I bet half of them have been tagged by idiots who do drive-by tagging with AWB too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of them were added by bots back in 2007 or something like that. I do drive-by tagging with AWB as much as I can to help on this. I also try to de-orphan pages by adding links between pages. This cannot be done by bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not helping with drive-by tagging.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts I think I do.  I would prefer not be characterised as idiot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Since when is this a pointless tag? Wikipedia doesn't work well without links - if a page is orphaned, people will see it on another page and assume there's no article, as it's not linked, but in fact some useful information languishes unread. This tag is necessary, even if hidden by default, for the maintenance and improvement of Wikipedia. How else do we find orphans to fix? BethNaught (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The link to ed bett's find link on the template makes it an invaluable service in profiling a very useful tool. There is plenty of consensus that it should be used at the very least, as a place holder, and there are a number of us that find it valuable as a tool in and of itself (moreover, it subsumes the maintenance category which is invaluable for those of us that build navboxes, et. al. ). Sadads (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep and take this discussion of how the template should be used to the template's Talk page, where it belongs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I find it's incredibly useful and its usage is in no way unclear, as claimed (and misrepresented) in the nomination statement. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am here via an invitation on my talk page. [As it turns out this was a canvas and not a general invitation I shall strike out my comments] The proposal to move the Orphan tags template to the talk page was passed in a large Rfc in December (see Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page). A sample of the comments here and some replies:
 * ". There is an RfC that agreed it should be moved to the talk page. The number who do not want that are far outweighed by those who do not want this template in article space.--PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus that it should be in article space at all, let alone visible. If it is to remain in article space then it should be invisible, as a minimum requirement. --PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "" The December RfC contradicts your statement.--PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "". Why? The outcome of the RfC was very clear. The text should appear on the talk page or not appear at all. There is no reason why given six months that template should still be placed in article space, but if it is to remain it should be at the bottom of the article and mute --call it the "White swan solution" (silent and serene on the surface with the paddling hidden under the surface).--PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the only justification is that it is placed in article space by WP:Twinkle by AFC, is a tail wagging the dog excuse. Six months is more than enough time for such programs to be altered to place the template onto the talk page. If it is to remain in article space only because of limitations in editing tools, then an agreed deadline for those tools to be modified should be agreed upon in the mean time a bot can  move to the templates to the talk pages and then scan for any new ones placed there by delinquent programs such as Twinkle (I like the Roundhead words "delinquent" for Cavaliers, so substitute in "cavalier" for "delinquent" if you do not consider Twinkle delinquent). -- PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So, you decided to cherry pick something, saying it was my only justification. Well done. Quote all or none. Fiddle   Faddle  16:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you think I misrepresented your point of view. Your full comment was . What other justification would you like me to consider that I have not addressed in this section?-- PBS (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No. You needed to say "I am sorry that I have offended you by cherry picking your comment". Your apology is a trick of rhetoric to pretend that you have apologised when you really have not. It is every bit as polite as saying "I am sorry but..." So I reject your non apology. I'm not interested, now, in anything you have to say on this matter, simply because you have chosen this silly device of speech. Two goes at oratory now. Fiddle   Faddle  17:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:BTW concerns can just as easily be addressed by placing the template on the talk page, as was the broad consensus in the December RfC.--PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "" If that is true how do you explain both the RfC and its outcome? -- PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * clean-up templates should only appear in article space if they convey some additional useful information to readers. For example unreferenced warns a reader that the information in an article may not be as accurate as those which contain cited sources. Editor to editor messages (such as is conveyed by the wording of the template orphan) should be placed on the talk pages not in article space -- after all that is why Wikipedia has talk pages.--PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "". It is the large majority view and not "some people" and as to why see the December RfC.--PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "" by placing the template on the talk page of the article.--PBS (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact you had told me that there should be new consensus if any of us still want to use Orphan tag. Here it is. Let's see how well it goes. I don't think that anyone will really take the responsibility of moving the tag to talk page. In fact it will be huge task, so it is better to take benefit of the current situation, in my opinion it was seemingly better to keep using the tag. We've already moved forward.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A bot could move them easily. A less disruptive method is to simply change it so that new tags have to be added to the talk pages, eventually the backlog will disappear. -- PBS (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you show that how a bot capable of doing that? Or if you have done that before you should provide diffs.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , you're overlooking the fact that it can not function properly from the talk page, and none of the tools that place the tag can deal with it being on a separate page. Since option A of moving it to the talk page is not an option, then we must move on to option B, which is to make it less visible on the article itself OR option C which is to completely disband WikiProject Orphanage and delete their template.  Option B has already been accomplished.  It only appears to the reader for the first two months or if grouped with other issues.  It only appears to us autoconfirmed, registered editors for the first two months or if grouped with other issues, but we have the option to add a single little snippet of code to our custom css to never have to see it.  In order to achieve option C, you would first have to gain global consensus that WP:ORPHAN should be disbanded, then achieve a consensus to delete. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What can not function properly? -- PBS (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Read Village pump (proposals)/Archive 109 and the following Village pump (proposals)/Archive 109. WP:AWB, WP:TW, a number of bots that maintain the category of orphans, and even the category itself will not function properly (it will list the talk pages as orphans instead of the articles, which is inappropriate and confusing). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PBS there is a consensus to keep in article space as invisible in most cases. Bot tagging is essential. I have offered to move all tags in talk pages i.e. 100,000+100,000 as soon as we find software to tag orphans in talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PBS the RfC was only on the placement of the tag and not its necessity. Orphan tagging is important for Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Not only is it used alot but it's obviously also useful, Plus it's even used on Twinkle, To put it politely - This is a ridiculous nomination!. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  17:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - no reason given why this maintenance tag is any less useful than any other. Instead, just an "I don't like seeing this" non-argument was offered and insults to those who tag pages for maintenance.  Without a valid argument for deletion, this nomination should be closed to avoid further wasted time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a special problem with this tag — there's nothing you can do to improve the page that it is placed on. You are implicitly expected to go off and start editing some other, unspecified pages instead.  This is a significant distraction when one is trying to work on a particular page. Andrew (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then per the documentation, hide it so you don't have to look at it. The template, when used alone, adds a couple links that you can do to improve the page that it is placed on and those links only work from on that page.  The template also categorizes the page so that other users can try and find pages to link back to that page.  All pages with no incoming links from on-wiki should have this tag, even if there is no way to de-orphan it right now simply for the categorizing feature. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a parameter for those that aren't expected to be deorphanable in the first two months to not have readers have to see it, but that is something that would have to be manually selected and the template would still need to be on the page for the categorization to work so the bots can do their job.  There are a few other things that could be done, but I've said too much already and WP:TfD is Not the correct forum  for those discussions.  You want to discuss it further?  Withdraw this nomination (as it obviously won't succeed anyways based on the sheer numbers of (speedy|snow)? keeps and lack of reasoning to delete it other than "I just don't like it" and start a proper discussion on the template's talk page. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - an incredibly useful template. GiantSnowman 18:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - A useful template, but it is sometimes placed on articles by mistake because the tool to determine whether an article is an orphan makes mistakes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , can you start a new discussion on the template's talk page with an example of these "mistakes"? Keep in mind, some people define orphan by the rule of three where-as Although a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag, three or more is ideal and will help ensure the article is reachable by readers. AWB still supports the option for this rule-of-three last I checked (, as a developer for that tool, can you confirm that and also have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage/Archive 2 where, apparently, there was an internal change in the WikiProject to kill the rule-of-three for tagging). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Example provided on template talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - very useful template, can't really say anything that hasn't already been said in the above thread. Anyone got a spare trout?  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I use the search links in the template when deorphaning. ~KvnG 02:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep it please! I'm not a regular editor on Wikipedia, but I often tune up articles with tags on them. And given orphans generally have less traffic, it would take quite a while before the next Wikipedian patches the orphan's hole with some links. Basically what everyone else said. GuyHimGuy (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy for freaking keep Its one of the best templates to use on New page patrol and its used by Twinkle Why would you not keep it? Lor Chat 04:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep because snow is lost to us with those handful of opposing views among the torrent of keep !votes. One of the most useful templates we have and one of the easiest to remedy. If you don't like seeing it on an article, resolved the issue by linking to that article from a few other articles. - Dravecky (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2014 (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:Infobox artist

 * 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 Keep per the overwhelming consensus below that indicates that a large proportion of editors are against this idea. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Infobox artist
 * Infobox person

Propose merging Template:Infobox artist with Template:Infobox person.

Artists are people. The artist template parameters are largely a subset of Infobox person's; those that are not could often be usefully used for other people. The "artist" template name is best kept as a redirect, or wrapper. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Likely to lead to even more minor crap being included. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support As per above. Alex2006 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unnecessary.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 17:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Johnbod.--Jockzain (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The person template is full enough without the added parameters. Keeping the artist template focused on artists will help artist articles display appropriate info in infobox. --Bejnar (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Benjar and and Johnbod. Mo' Parameters, Mo' Problems. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Johnbod and StarScream1007. Note also that, for the time being, useful parameters such as 'training' and 'patrons' are unique to 'infobox artist'. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just checked the person template - it has far too many parameters as it is. The artist template could use one more parameter: "pupils". I would not want to inflict that on the person template. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. embryomystic (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as the Artist template has a common set of params, unneeded by other disciplines, and would be confusing to noobs. Jax MN (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. ~KinHikari 19:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KinHikari (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose. The person template has items that I wouldn't want cluttering up an Infobox on an artist page (and there are people who think that if a parameter can be filled in, it must be filled in), and the artist template has parameters unique for artists which would be useless for non-artists if merged into the already bloated person template. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  19:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then those people should be educated. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose . If this gets merged, we might as well nominate all other templates listed in Category:People infobox templates, which should not happen. All of these templates serve a specific purpose, and should not be merged together. Steel1943  (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of those templates have very different sets of parameters; those nominated here do not. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * True enough; I'm withdrawing my vote. (I'm neutral on this now.) Steel1943  (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's close this now. I'll fix this myself in due course with a wrapper. Attempting to AfD it against the wall of complete ignorance displayed above is a waste of time. The vast majority of notified parties haven't got a clue about how templates work and are thus reflexively opposing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not reflexive opposition it is the difference in perception between how templates work technically, and how they work in practice, the psychology of it, if you will. --Bejnar (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as otherwise these templates fall under CSD:T3 "Duplication and hardcoded instances". — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (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:Arbitration ruling

 * 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 redirect Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 04:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbitration ruling

Unused template, which doesn't have a current use as it's function has been taken over by Template:Ds/talk notice or a more specific template which details exactly what the decision entails. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Template:Ds/talk notice per above rationale. This template has history, and the template's name correlates with the other. Steel1943  (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2014 (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.