Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 6



Template:Taxonomy/Youngoolithus juvenis

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  12:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC) There is no such thing as Youngoolithus juvenis. The only described oospecies of Youngoolithus is Y. xiaguanensis. Ashorocetus (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy/Youngoolithus juvenis
 * We might be able to speedy that per WP:G3. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll give that a shot. Ashorocetus (talk) 21:21, 12 October 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).

Template:Better known as

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC) never caught on, and easier to just type out 'better known as'. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Better known as
 * Delete per nom. —Ruud 20:06, 7 October 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).

Template:Digital distribution platforms

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as T3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  11:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Template was split into four templates by consensus. It can now be deleted. –Totie (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Digital distribution platforms
 * Delete Agreed. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 16:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Ruud 20:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy per WP:T3? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:43, 11 October 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).

Template:Skeptoid

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Oct 22 Primefac (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)* Skeptoid A template used to link episodes of an arbitrarily selected podcast. It's a good podcast and has a long history but it's still just a podcast. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I suppose the real question is whether or not it would be an appropriate external link. If it is, then the template's fine. If we shouldn't be linking to it in the first place, though, then it isn't. I think Dunning is noted for having solved a few mysteries - lines in Death Valley, etc, which may well push this one into the grounds of important source in a few cases, where other sources point back to him. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I first encountered Brian Dunning when I was developing FileMaker databases for fun and profit. I listen to the podcast and like it, but his notable work has been published in book form and can (and should) be cited as such. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - a template like this gives an inappropriate level of importance and tacit endorsement to what is after all a podcast by a figure of dubious reliability, despite the occasional good piece. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  12:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete being used to spam Wikipedia Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You may dislike this template but please do not mass undo my edits including ones that do not have anything to do with the template. It comes close to harassment and I have undone your undos. Please refrain from changing pages until the future of Template:Skeptoid is decided. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 16:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and check all the articles it links to for verification that the external links policy/citation policy is being adhered to. jps (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is entirely harmless.  It just a template for properly and consistently formatting ELs, not a navbox or other prominent display.  This is no different than, say,  Template:Findagrave.   Unless we are saying that we shouldn't have these links in EL, then there is zero reason to delete this.  A template providing consistent formatting is not an "endorsement".    Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I wrote this template five years ago in order to standardize links to what I consider a good info source. What is the problem with this? How is adding links to further information that contains its own citations "spamming Wikipedia"? Is "a good podcast with a long history" not notable enough for you guys? —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 16:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * More factors to consider Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Skeptoid shows that this template is not highly used. However, a quick spot check does not show it being used as a reference, but as an external link. In the few cases where Skeptoid is a valid reference, it's formatted differently. On the whole, I suspect the places where it's a valid external link per External_links will be limited to the cases where Dunning is recognised as an expert on the subject, which is only a small number. On the whole, I'm leaning delete as I suspect the number of valid uses of it in an external links section will be low. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Doc James. Geogene (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The template can be questioned as a link to a site created mostly for the purpose of pro-science advocacy, rather than simply education. However, it seems to generally provide a popular science type description of the subject that may be helpful for readers. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete EL template are great in general, but mostly for at least moderately widely used sources. This link doesn't seem like it would pass WP:EL in any article, however. —Ruud 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:EL - that is what I checked before voting here. Even if this is not RS (which is something debatable), I think this site belongs to Links to be considered #4 (Sites that ... contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources) - after reading what this site provides on a couple of subjects. What kind of Links to be avoided do you think it belongs to? The info by site seem to be "mainstream", sourced, and well written. It is usually not "neutral" in tone, but this is probably the only problem I can immediately count... My very best wishes (talk) 12:47, 8 October 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).