Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 3
May 3
Youth soccer is not notable, so this template is not required JMHamo (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Correction: Youth soccer, as an activity, is clearly notable per WP:GNG, but the overwhelming majority of youth soccer associations, and virtually all youth soccer teams are not notable per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Therefore this mostly red link template of youth soccer associations should still be deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Vast majority of subjects linked by this template are not notable. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- delete, and connect articles by simple see-also links. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
An infobox for people on the YouTube service, with too much emphasis on ever-changing numbers. Template:Infobox comedian and Template:Infobox person already accomodate this, and in a better way. Infoboxes are by occupation or type, not commercial service. JacktheHarry (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Seriously? How many truly notable "Youtube personalties" satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG? In the absence of the documented existence of a substantial number of notable "Youtube personalties", I agree with the nominator's rationale that these few cases may be better handled by Infobox person or one of the infobox templates suggested by the nominator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- This many? PC78 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- There are currently hundreds of pages on YouTube personalities, this is a widely used infobox. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. The mere 26 transclusions can be replaced with {{Infobox person}}. 23:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
- merge with {{infobox person/Internet info}} (i.e., make it a module). Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Merge per Frietjes. Seems like a sensible proposal. PC78 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The template provides info regular userboxes do not. Being a well-known YouTube personality is an occupation, not a hobby or side-gig. If you're going to go by the logic that the "ever changing numbers" is too much of a hassle you're incorrect. The List of wikis page always needs to have its article count updated, subscriber/view count should be no different. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This navbox does not include a parent article. How are these subjects connected and what is the defined scope? There should be an article that ties these individuals together. Otherwise, this is cherry picking. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's rationale. This will be a controversy magnet, with no stand-alone article per WP:NAVBOX, and no well-defined criteria for inclusion within the navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- delete, no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Airreg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Generates an inline external link to registration entries at various aviation registration authorities based on aircraft registration, it provides no added value to the article and ignores the fact that aircraft registrations are not unique so it can also generate the wrong information. On the rare occassions it needs to be used as a reference then normal cite web templates can be used. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: This has been nominated for deletion before -[1] and kept.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: It has been suggested that this would be far better formated as a reference citation rather than creating an external link, I dont have a problem with using these sites as a reference but creating an external link in the middle of an article doesnt really add anything. MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I have never found a useful link from eMedicine dictionary. What these links link to are a one or two line description of something in a website that's saturated with advertising. There's no encyclopedic value in these links, they do not help readers, and there is no reason we should be providing these en masse to users over other dictionaries. These links never provide more information that a stub article provide. Therefore I am proposing deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an attempt at content-removal-by-template-deletion. Show consensus to never link to the site concerned, in a more relevant venue (e.g. the spam blacklist), and then propose deleting this template only if and when it is no longer used. Otherwise, the links will be added anyway, and you'll have removed the best method of monitoring them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment not a very good template. Even for cases like Cytology where it could provide useful information, the template only goes to a search page and not to the exact match article page. looks like it shouldn't ever be used for for references as it lacks author information. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 11:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Even for pages like White matter where EMedicineDictionary has a brief definition, it appears to be an exact copy from Webster's New World Medical Dictionary without attribution. Compare Template:EMedicineDictionary which gives a big list of search results without redirecting to the exact match at http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6018 but compare with: WebMD (2009). "white matter". Webster's New World Medical Dictionary (3rd ed.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 456. ISBN 978-0-544-18897-6.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) So even in the best case, there is a much better source that could be cited. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 11:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Even for pages like White matter where EMedicineDictionary has a brief definition, it appears to be an exact copy from Webster's New World Medical Dictionary without attribution. Compare Template:EMedicineDictionary which gives a big list of search results without redirecting to the exact match at http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6018 but compare with: WebMD (2009). "white matter". Webster's New World Medical Dictionary (3rd ed.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 456. ISBN 978-0-544-18897-6.