Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 13



Template:2TeamBracket-Tennis3-ChallengeRound

 * 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. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC) redundant to using 2TeamBracket-Tennis3 with Challenge Round. I replaced it in the half dozen transcluding articles. Frietjes (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2TeamBracket-Tennis3-ChallengeRound
 * Delete, redundant per nom. Support further reduction of the number of tennis draw templates (via merging) if possible. --Wolbo (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2017 (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:Bill Willis Trophy

 * 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 Relisted on 2017 April 22 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bill Willis Trophy
 * 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:Transcontinental

 * 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Most of these properties listed have been divested. Once pruned, there will be too many red links or non-linked contents to justify the continued presence of a navbox for this company. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Transcontinental
 * Delete. It's not quite obvious from the template right now, but actually all of the properties currently listed in it have been divested; as of April 2017, all that Transcontinental actually still owns is a batch of small community weekly papers and a couple of magazines in Quebec, of which zero actually have articles and thus the only remaining possible place for this is on the parent article Transcontinental (company) itself. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a reasonable number of newspapers actually get articles or Transcontinental starts going on a renewed expansion binge, but we don't need a navbox for it anymore if there's nothing for it to navigate to. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2017 (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:Olympics on CBS

 * 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. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Once you remove the crew per WP:PERFNAV, and all the tangential articles not directly related to CBS's coverage of the Olympics, you are left with this version which is not worthy of a navbox. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Olympics on CBS
 * delete, if you remove the broadcasters and the tangential articles, there is basically nothing left. Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Lizard  (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2017 (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:NHL on Global

 * 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 Relisted on 2017 April 22 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * NHL on Global
 * 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:ASIN

 * 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 keep. Normally after three TFDs there would be a moratorium on future renominations, but if the outcome of any future RFC/discussion determines that Amazon should not be used then a renomination is perfectly acceptable. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC) This template exists in order to facilitate links to sales pages on Amazon. That's a terrible idea. First, people should be using ISBNs because that way the book can also be found at libraries. Second, it gives preferential treatment to a vendor, which we should not do.
 * ASIN

Consensus last time this was discussed was "keep for now", with variations on "we should not really be doing this". We now have over 50,000 links to Amazon on Wikipedia, of which over a thousand are provided through this template. It's time to start fixing that. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Defer to the outcome of the discussion currently in progress at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam for the sake of consistency - there's no point in an inconsistent decision. Cabayi (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Deletion_review/Log/2016_September_23. Essentially:
 * This template is part of a family of templates for citation identifiers, like hdl and bibcode. Not having it is detrimental to citation style flexibility. This template is part of a family of templates for citation identifiers, like hdl and bibcode. Not having it is detrimental to citation style flexibility.
 * While ASIN shouldn't be used when other identifiers like the ISBN is available, it is sometimes the only identifier available for a source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep agree it's a "terrible idea", but it was created as an identifier of last resort. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC).


 * Keep because it is useful as a last resort for readers who are trying to find sources, but change the documentation to say something like "This template should be used only if an ISBN or OCLC identifier is not available." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above, I see no good that will come out of this template's deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep Need to defer to the larger discussion at WikiProject Spam. If they find Amazon worthy of blacklisting, this is a T2-able. If not, I don't see why this can't stay. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note the previous two TfD discussions for this template from April 2007 and June 2012 that resulted in "keep" and "keep for now" respectively. – Uanfala (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Currently, the only way to reliably identify sources cited as Amazon Kindle editions. Such editions may or may not have ISBNs, or may have non-searchable ISBNs. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2017 (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).