Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 13

< December 12	December 14 >

December 13

Tv.com templates

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 Temporary procedural Keep. A TfD delete would have the effect of removing external links from articles. WP:ELN is the appropriate place for discussing the WP:External links policy, and the appropriate discussion is already underway. A decision that TV.com does not meet WP:EL should result in the deletion of these templates.

Non-admin close as requested at WP:ANRFC by Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 13:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tv.com show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tv.com anthology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tv.com episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tv.com episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following the recent deletion of the Tv.com template, I propose to delete these remaining templates. While owned by CBS Interactive, Tv.com is mostly user generated, failing WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Unlike IMDB where entertainment industry professionals are known to oversee content, Tv.com series/season/episode information more closely resembles a site like Wikipedia. Not a great resource overall and don't see these links as encyclopedic. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per non - WP:LINKSTOAVOID. That said as mentioned at the last "Templates for discussion" nomination of one of these a good point was made - that is should we not be going after the links themselves if consensus is the site its self is the problem (add to black list?).Moxy (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, I see no consensus on tv.com, in general as a bad EL. (The TFD on that template is a mixed bag and nothing can be pulled from it.) --MASEM (t) 00:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree we should be taking about the site its self - From what I can see it would not be hard to eliminate the link - as if fails so many policies.Moxy (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and discuss TV.com elsewhere - My read of the tv.com template deletion (I may be wrong) was that a new template for tv.com was being made to reflect that tv.com is using a new URL form that our current approach fails; ergo , all the above nominated templates were put into place to handle the new format. In any case, the former TFD was not about the appropriateness of tv.com links, but what to do with the template (which closed "delete the Tv.com template after replacement"). Checking WT:EL and WT:ELN I see no new discussion of the appropriateness of TV.com, and that should happen first, per the previous TFD, before these should be sent to TFD. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted pointers to this discussion in both places, so I see no reason why we can't have the discussion here. Frietjes (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because the first step is to determine if tv.com is an approriate EL problem or not (which may or may not require admin action). Then we can talk about the templates. Doing that discussion here is going to waste admin time. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Having it here again is going to taint the result. If TV.com is a bad source, then establish a consensus as such and the rest follows. Without that, then in any number of places the link will be turned from a template to a direct external link. If the idea is that TV.com is indeed bad, then both forms should be removed from Wikipedia. This won't accomplish that. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under your scenario, the discussion would take place twice anyway. First the WP:EL discussion might transpire and then based on that consensus, a TFD would have to be opened to delete these templates anyway. I do think it would be easier and logistically more productive to have the TFD discussion first to determine the consensus. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was wondering whether Wikipedical could point to somewhere that indicates that IMDb does indeed have "entertainment industry professionals" who oversee content for its television series/season/episode/anthology information? If not, then the IMDb claim is irrelevant to this discussion, and should not be made. I've seen discussions on Wikipedia where it was said that there are some sections of IMDb that are user-supplied, without editorial supervision. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am admittedly not the expert on IMDB, but I will submit a quick source that addresses this question. From an interview with IMDB's founder: "The majority of content on IMDb is user-generated, but what has changed is who those users are... [I]n amongst those users who are supplying the data are a growing number of people in the entertainment industry, either updating their own information or agents updating their clients' information, publicists or production companies making sure we have every credit for their latest production listed. We are fortunate to get information sometimes far in advance. You get the feeling they hang up the phone with their agent, having agreed to do the film, and the second thing they do is update the credit with us." The same is not true of TV.com, and this is the main distinction. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete the existence of these templates appear to give "officially sanctioned" status to a site that is user generated content, the type of content that we explicitly declare are not appropriate for external links WP:ELNO -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Nothing more than a Spam template for a link that fails WP:EL and which offers incentives for the creation of content which is; Self-published, Origional Research and Questionable. Website states;

“

"'write reviews, participate in our lively discussions, and contribute to show, episode and person guides!...you will start getting points. Pretty much everything gives you points - even just visiting the site! - but the biggest totals come from adding episode summaries, writing reviews, posting to forums, blogging, filling out your profile and adding friends. As you get more and more points you will reach higher and higher levels. There are over 100 levels to reach, and the higher the level the more awesome bragging rights you have. Get enough points and you might even become the Editor of a show." -- tv.com/aboutus.html

”

TV.com links fail Wikipedias External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Equally, Wikipedia is not a repository for links--Hu12 (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss whether tv.com is an appropriate external link at the appropriate venue. i.e. WP:ELN - This really is a ridiculous situation. Firstly, the nomination: {{Tv.com}} hasn't beeen deleted, this nomination has stopped that, as can be seen at the BRFA. The nomination here is based on the appropriateness of tv.com as an external link and some of the delete votes claim that tv.com violates WP:EL, but nobody has actually attempted to gain consensus that this is the case by by discussing the matter at WP:ELN, which is the appropriate venue for discussing the appropriateness of tv.com as an external link. Until that is done, there is little point in deleting the templates as it won't stop anyone adding tv.com urls to articles, it just means they'll have to do it manually. Deleting the templates now for any other reason is unjustifiable, and quite frankly, stupid. As of right now, tv.com related templates (those nominated here and {{tv.com}} itself) are transcluded 10,127 times. It makes perfect sense for so many uses to be done using templates instead of bare urls. The argument that "the existence of these templates appear to give 'officially sanctioned' status" to tv.com is specious at best. They do nothing of the sort They merely make it easy to link to the site. We have much looser requirements for external links than we do for citations; while they can't be used as references they can still exist and we allow templates unless a site is blacklisted. Although I have voted in the past to delete these templates,[1] I have to acknowledge that 10,127 transclusions demonstrates that the Wikipedia community accepts that tv.com is an appropriate external link, so deletion of these templates would be counter-productive at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My thoughts echo TheRedPenOfDoom. These links fail WP:EL and embedding them in a template encourages bad linking practice. Over time the inappropriate links add up and create a cleanup headache. Them From Space 07:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments made here, I have made a report about Tv.com at WP:EL. Instead of adding your thoughts here, please comment at the new discussion: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Tv.com. Until consensus is reached there, I withdraw this nomination. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Wikipedical (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep this is not the place or the manner to delete all tv.com references at once. An RfC is a more appropriate step. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and comment I am getting pretty disgusted by the constant attacks on IMDB.com as a valid source for media historical content. TV.com, at least in the realm of television is the best suitable fallback. Personally, I find IMDB and TV.com both to be as accurate as wikipedia itself, which I actually think is pretty good. What we have effectively done is eliminate the best, certainly the most complete sources of our media history. And logically, without sources, there is a faction of wikipedia (expletive deleted)s who then use the absence of an acceptable source to campaign to delete the articles. It has happened repeatedly, I fought that war during the BLP mass deletions. It made me feel like I was building sandcastles against a strong tide. Sure they can't attack the top echelon of TV, film or music stars with a wide variety of sources, but the historical articles about bit players even in major productions frequently rely on an IMDB or TV.com sources to document their credits. Before you blank out these sources, provide an acceptable alternative, lest we have a lot of perfectly valid content on wikipedia washed away. We have slippery slopes around here. Eliminating the template is just a step before the source is eliminated, followed by the articles reliant on the source. Watch out. Trackinfo (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above proposal to eliminate TV.com as a valid source proves my point. Why wast time just eliminating the template when we can eliminate the source? Ultimately, this is an attack on wikipedia content. A lot of articles will then be in Jeopardy!. Can I have missing wikipedia articles for $1,000 Alex? Trackinfo (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the above rants have little to do with the appropriateness of at template linking to user generated content. and the demands that "if this 'source' that doesnt meet the standard of reliable sources is not given special permission to be used despite it not meeting the general requirements then you must provide an alternative" is complete crap. if there are not reliable sources that cover a subject, there a not reliable sources that cover the subject. period. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red: What we have here is a set of policies designed to create a specific outcome. Some people want to delete a huge swath of historical actor bios (along with the a lot of other wikipedia content). By eliminating IMDB and TV.com as viable sources, they leave many articles unsourced . . . even though they are accurate information. Under BLP, many of these could be deleted speedily. IMDB and TV.com have done a good job of cataloging that information, so good, there are few other competitors, certainly none as comprehensive. And this gap in information is only going to widen. History had three major networks and a handful of major studios producing the majority of content; now we have hundreds of networks and digital film anarchy on a global basis. It is probably beyond the scope of any commercial entity to keep the database alive. In such a public field (you know, the point of putting out entertainment is for a lot of people to watch) it makes sense for users to keep the details. And because this content is so public, a lot of other people have seen it too, thus having a multitude of sources to correct incorrect information and keep the catalog accurate. This is completely different from a WP:OR being the lone source to hear some quote and to present it here as fact--what these policies are trying to protect against. So what I am saying is, before you see the words "user generated" so you can close your eyes and ears and start humming, look at what these databases actually are; how the content comes to exist. And certainly until that has been done by some policy setters who have the ability to think, don't eliminate the template to the source. Trackinfo (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) again, your position has zero relevance as to whether the template is an appropriate official link to the site and 2) your position that because there are not other reliable third party sources that are not subject to random user generated input we need to allow these sources is FLATLY contradictory to our very basic and widely held determination that user generated content cannot be used to establish notability or for content related the living persons. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so that links to a poor quality and inappropriate site are not encouraged/proliferated. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete the templates. having a template for this EL sends the message that it should be added wherever possible, which is the wrong message to send. it really provides very low value information, compared to other sources, and the way the content is generated and maintained is troublesome. I have no problem with linking to this site on a very limited basis, but we should not send the message that it is one of the standard things to stick in the EL section of very article about a tv show, tv episode, etc. Frietjes (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It seems like the links are of low quality, which is the only thing that really matters, user-generated or not. A broader discussion of whether or not TV.com is an appropriate external link is a good one to have at WT:EL and WT:TV. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As this was withdrawn two days ago by Wikipedical, shouldn't the discussion be closed, and the discussion started then at WP:EL (Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Tv.com) be the active one? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were debating the templates here, and not necessarily the validity of the links, but I would not object to restarting this discussion after the other discussion has closed. Frietjes (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we close withdrawn nominations early unless there are no outstanding delete opinions. WP:SK #1 Them From Space 21:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - User-generated content is one of the big Nos on WP:EL. Unfortunately we end up seeing a lot of bad links that WP:EL rules and discussions expressly prohibit get enshrined because there is a template for them, with the argument "they must be alright or else there wouldn't be a template". Templates get less notice and more use, which is backwards. DreamGuy (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just noting that the WP:ELN discussion has been in progress for over a week now and while there is some support for discouraging links to tv.com, there's no real support, and therefore no consensus, for banning them outright. Given this, there is still nothing to be gained from deleting the templates, since it still won't stop links. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any good reason for deleting potentially useful links to IMDB and tv.com. They don't intentionally give out wrong information. But I have a Big question! Since this template nomination was withdrawn by user Wikipedical, why is this discussion still going on? Shouldn't this discussion be closed and archived now. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TRPoD. (Yes, I know it was "aithdrawn", but that doesn't mean they still shouldn't go.)Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is a little confusing since the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and directed people to the ELN discussion. Is that your position also? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calls to close this discussion, which has now been dragging on for 18 days, started 2 weeks ago. ~~Since t~~There is no consensus at ELN to declare tv.com an unacceptable external link, ~~the only real~~ so an outcome here, based on the votes above, is to delete the templates~~. R~~ would mean that removing the templates from the article should be by converting the templated links to bare links, not removing them outright, because of the lack of consensus mentioned. Those voting to the delete the templates appear to think this will stop tv.com being used as an external link, when it won't. It will simply make linking to tv.com less convenient and less consistent. One of the reasons for using templates is to maintain consistency across the project, so deleting the templates is counter-productive at best. Regardless, given that the nomination was withdrawn two weeks ago, it's high time somebody stepped in and closed the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That logic makes no sense. "No Consensus to categorize tv.com as ELNO" does not translate to "Delete these templates" in any way, shape, or form. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, you're absolutely correct. I screwed up there. I've fixed it appropriately. Thanks for pointing it out. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin It seems a number of !voters here were under the mistaken belief that deleting a template was the proper way to remove a specific external link from Wikipedia. A number of knowledgeable users have pointed out that the proper venue is WP:ELN, and indeed the issue of TV.com, as an external link, was brought up at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Tv.com. There is also some confusion between WP:EL and WP:RS. EL is to provide users with helpful information that can't otherwise be included in the encyclopedia, whereas RS is to validate that our information is correct. Neither of these have anything to do with TfD. This discussion is essentially a confused mishmash of not understanding our policies, as WP:TfD is for discussing templates and not for discussing external links. I would recommend educating the !voters that seem to be misunderstanding our policies so they know the difference between broken or unused templates and the questioning of external links and also the difference between external links and reliable sources. I will also note that the outcomes at TfD are based on our WP:CONSENSUS policy, which is determining the result of arguments based on the proper application of policy. Outcomes are not based on raw vote count, which is why we use "!vote" instead of "vote". Thank you in advance. 64.40.54.118 (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary procedural keep, because this template isn't immediately harmful, and its deletion would break thousands of links projectwide. Three of these are heavily used, and it would be silly to delete Tv.com anthology and keep the others. These templates are useful ways of linking to tv.com webpages, and as long as we're doing it, we might as well use the template. Please obtain consensus for removing these links, and then come back and re-request deletion; as long as it's harmless by itself, it's a bad idea to delete a template with thousands of transclusions. I have no opinion on whether this website is appropriate to link in ELs. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Fashiondesigner

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. Participants have made an argument for how the template is useful by linking to material that would not be good to include in an article, or that might not be in an article. Examples were given of the information that site might add. No strong argument for why the template violates EL. delldot ∇. 04:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fashiondesigner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An external links template that does not comply with WP:EL. The site it directs the reader to adds no information that cannot be placed in the Wikipedia article, and in the cases I checked the site holds less information than the Wikipedia article. The site is mentioned by some sources as a fashion directory, but is of low notability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Can you name a few cases which confirm your claim? Please have a look at the famous designers and you will see that there is a lot of additional information that is not being displayed on Wiki (e.g. Perfume list). Also, the designer profiles on "FMD" display the associated brands related to the designers ( Profile [[2]] of Valentino ) and then again the fashion brands connect the editorials related to the brand and the magazines. Being a fashion professional and doing my researches (on scientific level) for now over 20 years on this field, I confirm that the whole database there is of a far reaching value and the fashion industry knows that. Also, claiming that the oldest fashion database out there is of low notability while they have a notable reference, lets me think of a personal issue between this request and the page in question. I kindly ask you to leave the template as it is and I will provide further databases and work on it further (Style.com e.g.).

► robomod 16:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't see anything in WP:ELNO that would prohibit us from linking to the Fashion Model Directory, though I do wish that some of the entries were more informative and detailed. Where the entries are more fleshed out, the material seems neutral, accurate and relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of their subjects. It includes information that Wikipedia does not typically provide, such as a textual description of the "look" of the designs (though we could/should be including this). There is also some level of detail that would be excessive were it to be included in articles, such as who has worn the designer, the brands and labels they are associated with, their perfumes and so on. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 10:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Broken Bells

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. This is a borderline case, and I do not think I can delete without an affirmative consensus. Ruslik_Zero 14:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Broken Bells (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates the band, two members, and two albums. Any article is one click away from any other. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Birthday of a Person

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. delldot ∇. 05:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Birthday of a Person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not seeing the utility of this template. Birthdays don't usually bring about any new biographical information, let alone a steady influx of rapidly-changing information. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously not useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary and not helpful in the slightest. SMC (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template seems to be not formatted properly for such a notice, and it would seem to be redundant to {{high traffic}} or {{current}} if it showed up as a Google Doodle or some news reports -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:JoeWiki

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JoeWiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While {{Wikia}} is the base for this template - as it is with the rest of the nom's bulk individual nominations - replacing widely used pass through templates for areas where there is active article creation may become more of a problem than its worth. Having the pass through limits the parameters an editor has to add to article names to article titles and enforces consistency in the titling of the external wiki in the resulting EL. - J Greb (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Wotwiki

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. The one keep decision did not address any of the arguments except the "wikia" deletion rationale. Other arguments are sound and not countered, the keep voter said they did not evaluate these. delldot ∇. 05:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wotwiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Why does this exist? Just make an external link in the external links section--talk pages aren't intended for outgoing links. This would also be redundant to {{Wikia}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we already have an article page generic Wikia template for this, {{wikia}} ; this is an inappropriate use for a talk page template. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply this is a talk page template, not an article page template. So, it isn't the only rationale. Why should we have a talk page template doing this, since it should go in the external links section on the article page. Why should a Wikia EL template use an ambox? That doesn't seem to mesh with WP:EL -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence my "IF" and "only commenting on the deletion rational". -- Ned Scott 12:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I feel you didn't bother to check the template, but put in a formulaic objection. Considering that I already filed an opinion based on the use as a talk page template, it seems to me you didn't read that either. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This plainly isn't an appropriate talk page banner. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Wikiaskew

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiaskew (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While {{Wikia}} is the base for this template - as it is with the rest of the nom's bulk individual nominations - replacing widely used pass through templates for areas where there is active article creation may become more of a problem than its worth. Having the pass through limits the parameters an editor has to add to article names to article titles and enforces consistency in the titling of the external wiki in the resulting EL. - J Greb (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Wiki24

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wiki24 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While {{Wikia}} is the base for this template - as it is with the rest of the nom's bulk individual nominations - replacing widely used pass through templates for areas where there is active article creation may become more of a problem than its worth. Having the pass through limits the parameters an editor has to add to article names to article titles and enforces consistency in the titling of the external wiki in the resulting EL. - J Greb (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Travellerwiki

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Travellerwiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - While {{Wikia}} is the base for this template - as it is with the rest of the nom's bulk individual nominations - replacing widely used pass through templates for areas where there is active article creation may become more of a problem than its worth. Having the pass through limits the parameters an editor has to add to article names to article titles and enforces consistency in the titling of the external wiki in the resulting EL. This one may fall outside "widely used" and "active", but that is very different from "redundant" - J Greb (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:TheGoodGuysWiki

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 the last comment of Ned Scott. Ruslik_Zero 15:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TheGoodGuysWiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete per J Greb. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm 21 pages total on that wiki and the last edit was a year ago. Template itself is unused. I'm thinking it doesn't pass WP:EL. I'm still fine with deletion. -- Ned Scott 09:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the target wikia seems to either gone or never existed. - J Greb (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a valid wiki, unused, serves no purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The template used an incorrect parameter, resulting in a broken link. I have fixed the template to point to the intended wiki. I offer no opinion on the fate of this template, however, as I have little experience with TfD practices; I am only pointing out that nonexistent wiki argument has been rendered invalid. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:TARWiki

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TARWiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - While {{Wikia}} is the base for this template - as it is with the rest of the nom's bulk individual nominations - replacing widely used pass through templates for areas where there is active article creation may become more of a problem than its worth. Having the pass through limits the parameters an editor has to add to article names to article titles and enforces consistency in the titling of the external wiki in the resulting EL. This one may fall outside "widely used" and "active", but that is very different from "redundant" - J Greb (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:TardisIndexFile

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. delldot ∇. 04:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TardisIndexFile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not redundant; {{wikia}} is used as a meta-template. This goes for all templates listed here. — Edokter (talk) — 22:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The same argument could be used for {{cite web}} which can be replaced by a formatted external link. Templates ensure standard formatting across articles and make an editor's job easier. Edgepedia (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:EnPW

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. Not everyone is agreed about the question of whether it's important that the source cite be reliable, but it looks like there's consensus that this template is not necessary or a good way to attribute it. delldot ∇. 04:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EnPW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one instance. Attribution can be provided in an edit summary per WP:CWW —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this external wiki a reliable source ? If not, then delete, since we should not have attribution templates for non-RS sources. Attribution templates would then seemingly endorse using non-RS sources. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a reliable source, shouldn't be using the content at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete We have a number of such Attribution templates intended to label an article when large swathes of it have been copied and pasted from another source. The one article this one's used on, (Tree of Knowledge System), appears to have been written by the originator of the ToK system over at Psychology Wikia. Although it was unsourced when it arrived, it's subsequently been populated with reasonable citations. Personally, I'd like to encourage a lot more of this kind of thing - genuine experts licensing work so that we can use it - and when it happens, it seems reasonable to me to indicate the source the bottom of the article (at least for as long as most of our article consists of a copy/paste of their work). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Koavf, as there are other more appropriate ways to attribute content. Anthonyhcole is correct in saying that this kind of label would be appropriate if multiple instances of large sections of content were being pulled from that wiki, but if this happens fewer than perhaps 100 times I do not think it is good to make a template. This template has been made in anticipation of greater use of that site's content rather to solve the existing problem of how to source any content coming from that site. I agree with Anthonyhcole that I would like to encourage more content transfer but this process starts with content transfer and not the creation of attribution templates. SandyGeorgia and the IP are correct that the site is not a reliable source, but that is irrelevant. If the cite is hosting properly cited content then pulling content from there and posting it to Wikipedia is just like pulling good content from one Wikipedia article to another and whether the content itself is reliable does not make sense in that context. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It doesn't need a template. A line of text at the bottom of the page would do the job just as well. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SandyGeorgia. We shouldn't be "pulling content" from and citing an unreliable source. In fact, if "large swathes of it have been copied and pasted" here, those instances should be removed IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed. Not a WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:HarryPotterWiki

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HarryPotterWiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While {{Wikia}} is the base for this template - as it is with the rest of the nom's bulk individual nominations - replacing widely used pass through templates for areas where there is active article creation may become more of a problem than its worth. Having the pass through limits the parameters an editor has to add to article names to article titles and enforces consistency in the titling of the external wiki in the resulting EL. - J Greb (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am an admin at the wiki and question, and I am not sure I understand exactly what the rationale is here. Okay, so they can be easily replaced, but why would they need to be? ProfessorTofty (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW: The issues that this template, along with a swack of others Koavf nomed, are "pass-through" templates. The exist so that the template "Wikia" is applied consistently on related articles. IIUC the name would prefer editors be relegated to using the base template, even if it makes things more difficult for consistency across numerous articles. "Easily replaced" in this case be comes situational on the ones in heavy use. If it is unlikely that new articles will be created in a topic set, then it would be easy, if not necessarily desirable. If articles are still being created, then ease of use is lost.
  Some of these blatantly fail WP:EL or are unused/unusable. That does not seem to apply in this specific case. - J Greb (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Halopedia

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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Halopedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Halopedia is not halo.wikia. — subtank ^(7alk) 07:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I was obviously mistaken. My apologies. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Sww

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 and move to Template:Wookieepedia. Ruslik_Zero 15:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sww (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The wiki is a vastly improving work, what was originally more or less fan fiction and speculation is now a well sourced documented index of characters, events, locations etc... of the world of Star Wars. --The Mercenary 73 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's redundant. Broken Segue 23:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While {{Wikia}} is the base for this template - as it is with the rest of the nom's bulk individual nominations - replacing widely used pass through templates for areas where there is active article creation may become more of a problem than its worth. Having the pass through limits the parameters an editor has to add to article names to article titles and enforces consistency in the titling of the external wiki in the resulting EL. - J Greb (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it could be replaced, but I'm not convinced that it would be a good idea. Tagging {{sww|Death Star}} is preferable to {{wikia|starwars||Death Star}} (note the double pipe, which is necessary for it to display the same content; that's less than ideal), especially since I'd rather that the second link in {{sww}} point at our local Wookieepedia article, rather than being a second (unnecessary) link to Wookieepedia itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Wookieepedia admin I'll avoid !voting due to my COI, but indeed, the template does help ensure standardization in the titling. EVula also makes a good point about pointing the second link to the local article here; such a link might help get a little more traffic on that article and hopefully improve it with some of the sources that have been sitting on the talk page since May 2008 (which per WP:COI I'm unwilling to do myself). Moving the template to Template:Wookieepedia (which only has five transclusions and could be easily renamed) might also be a good idea, since "SWW" refers to an old name for the wiki that is no longer used, is non-intuitive, and means other things in the real world. However, moving the template is probably outside the scope of this discussion. jcgoble3 (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While the nom stated deletion as their desired outcome, "move" is with in the scope of a discussion here. Even if the result here is "keep" the template can be moved to a more appropriate name after that point. - J Greb (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:StarTrekMinor

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. delldot ∇. 04:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StarTrekMinor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because template is broken, and none of the revisions are functional links. AFAIKT, this template has never worked as a functional template, which makes it an obvious candidate for deletion. As far as the merits of the template itself, I think that it would serve a purpose, but only if it actually worked. (I'm not sure if the template ever worked; I can only go by what the history currently supplies, which is a series of broken links. If it worked in the past, my vote might be different, but as it is currently configured, it's worthless.) Horologium (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Horologium. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Forgotten Realms Wikia

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Forgotten Realms Wikia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's redundant. Broken Segue 23:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Week Keep - While {{Wikia}} is the base for this template - as it is with the rest of the nom's bulk individual nominations - replacing widely used pass through templates for areas where there is active article creation may become more of a problem than its worth. Having the pass through limits the parameters an editor has to add to article names to article titles and enforces consistency in the titling of the external wiki in the resulting EL. This one falls outside "widely used", but WP:D&D may be worth pinging to see if it is intended to be used. - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:StarTrekMajor

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. delldot ∇. 05:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StarTrekMajor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because template is broken, and none of the revisions are functional links. AFAIKT, this template has never worked as a functional template, which makes it an obvious candidate for deletion. As far as the merits of the template itself, I think that it would serve a purpose, but only if it actually worked. (I'm not sure if the template ever worked; I can only go by what the history currently supplies, which is a series of broken links. If it worked in the past, my vote might be different, but as it is currently configured, it's worthless.) Horologium (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Horologium. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:FFwiki

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FFwiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently unused and broken. - J Greb (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Parawiki

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parawiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From another place and time. By all means. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 19:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to supporting delete per J Greb's comments about usage and EL standards. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's redundant. Broken Segue 23:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost unused and the wikia it points to doesn't appear to meet the EL criteria. - J Greb (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:MuseumsWiki

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MuseumsWiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - While {{Wikia}} is the base for this template - as it is with the rest of the nom's bulk individual nominations - replacing widely used pass through templates for areas where there is active article creation may become more of a problem than its worth. Having the pass through limits the parameters an editor has to add to article names to article titles and enforces consistency in the titling of the external wiki in the resulting EL. This one may fall outside "widely used" and "active", but that is very different from "redundant" - J Greb (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comments above. The rational is weak and will just create problems as discussed above. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Muppets

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Muppets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's redundant. Broken Segue 23:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Memoryalpha

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Memoryalpha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Template cannot be tagged, as it's protected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it is protected, then why isn't there an edit request on the talk page? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments here. I'm also very certain Memory Alpha is a justified EL and that this template has enough usage to justify itself. Also, a TfD shouldn't be started on a protected template until an admin can do the edit request for the TfD notice. -- Ned Scott 02:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Justin koavf has yet to file an edit request, so seems like a procedural close is in order, since it's been 2 days, and no action by the nominator to do anything about it. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Lostpedia

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lostpedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Marveldatabase

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marveldatabase (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 12:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:LMW

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, only about four transclusions, and the template is partially broken. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LMW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:League of Legends Wiki

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, as it is orphaned and redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:League of Legends Wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Digimon Wiki

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Digimon Wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikia is not a wiki in itself, but more of a host for individual wikis (plus a community) that should be judged on their individual merits. These TfDs should at least be closed so that we can have a centralized discussion on this (like we've done in the past for these templates) rather than all these individual TfDs. --Ned Scott 07:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:DCdatabase

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. delldot ∇. 05:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DCdatabase (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. This Wikia template also includes a link to DC Comics, but that will certainly be linked multiple times within any given article, so is itself redundant as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While {{Wikia}} is the base for this template - as it is with the rest of the nom's bulk individual nominations - replacing widely used pass through templates for areas where there is active article creation may become more of a problem than its worth. Having the pass through limits the parameters an editor has to add to article names to article titles and enforces consistency in the titling of the external wiki in the resulting EL. And to a degree I agree with Ned Scott here - this should have been done as a general discussion instead of 20 individual ones. - J Greb (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Dcauw

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dcauw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Comicswikia

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 as it is orphaned and redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comicswikia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:BabylonProject

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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BabylonProject (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Wikia}}--all instances can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and redirect replace all instances with {{wikia}}, delete the history, then redirect this template name to Template:WikiProject Babylon 5 , since many wikiproject banners have similarly named redirects. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if "wikia" is the only deletion rational per my comments here. I have not individually evaluated the wiki itself, or the usage to see if it is enough to justify a template, and am only commenting on the deletion rational. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Dei

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) 01:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dei (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to MediaWiki interlanguage links —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't use the style of {{de icon}} and is opaquely named (it should be "de link" or something ; dei means something in the real world ) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Edt

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. No objections, lots of input not needed at TFD. delldot ∇. 05:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Evidently a user experiment in the Template: namespace. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Esi

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) 01:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Esi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to MediaWiki links —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't use the style of {{es icon}} and is opaquely named (it should be "es link" or something ; esi means something in the real world ) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Extension

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) 01:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extension (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to the interwiki map —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Fri

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) 01:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fri (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{lang}} (with the fr option) and {{lang-fr}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't use the style of {{fr icon}} and is opaquely named (it should be "frlink" or something ; Fri means something in the real world ) -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Beln

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) 01:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beln (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, cf. {{Belf}} below —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Projectify move into WikiProject Belgium space. Say WP:WikiProject Belgium/beln -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:CaTrans

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) 01:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CaTrans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, only one transclusion —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it was determined that we should use talk page attribution for such things back when we standardized on Template:Translated page, it being equivalent to split-outs and mergers that also use talk page attribution templates -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Belf

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) 01:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and six years old. If the WikiProject wants it, they can recreate or userfy it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Projectify move into WikiProject Belgium space. Say WP:WikiProject Belgium/belf -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.