The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. It sounds like further discussion about DABs is needed, but this template is not. (non-admin closure)Primefac (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A currently-unused disambiguation-page template whose only historical purpose is to prevent other Wikipedia editors from repairing disambiguation links. Since that goes against the spirit of improving the encyclopedia, we should not have this template. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into ((Disambiguation)). If I had known this template existed I would have used it. There are occasional dab links that are are difficult to resolve without domain knowledge but which nevertheless do get "fixed" by overconfident editors, who are prone to getting these wrong (there are two discussions about the recent example of Taraka: User talk:Fuortu/Archive 1#Difficult dabs and User talk:Uanfala/Archive 1#Taraka). We would want to exclude such pages from the WP:DPL reports. This template would also be useful for dab pages under construction: particularly in the case of ones resulting from topic restructuring, where we would want to give the content editors enough time to update the entries and rewrite the ledes of the linked articles before others rush in to disambiguate links. At any rate, this template shouldn't be used too often and its documentation should make that explicit. Also, I think that its functionality should ideally be provided by the main template ((Disambiguation)), but whatever the implementation, it should exclude dab pages only from the DPL reports and not from other tracking mechanisms. Uanfala (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Uanfala. I too didn't know about this, or I would have used it repeatedly. We have a long-standing problem where a concept is explained adequately in a sentence or paragraph in a disambig page (and so a better target article is unlikely to be produced), but well-meaning editors keep coming along and "fixing" links to this, by pointing them incorrectly to one of the different (and wrong) dab'ed links from that page. We need a solution to this. This template may be part of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another part of the solution to this specific problem (though by all means not applicable in all cases) is turning suitable dab pages into broad-concept articles. Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is the template's documentation in hidden HTML comments? Is there something wrong with it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made that visible now. It was in html comments probably because it looks unfinished. Uanfala (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to be able to see the hidden parts, but if you do you're welcome to move them to the documentation. Uanfala (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unwise for me - or anyone - to do that, without knowing why they were hidden in the first place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless directions based on policy and consensus support in WP:WikiProject Disambiguation are introduced. This template was introduced as a mostly undiscussed one-off "solution" to a problem that IMO should be addressed by other means. Mistaken links to disambiguation pages should be addressed directly. I don't think it is appropriate to create yet another quasi-disambiguation classification (and one for which the only purpose is to prevent links to the disambiguation page from being fixed). If the pages are not actually disambiguation pages, then they should be changed to one of the other already existing quasi-disambiguation classes (such as a set index article or WP:broad-concept article). Simply hiding these pages away in an obscure maintenance category is inappropriate. If this is kept, the articles should remain in Category:disambiguation pages and should continue to have visibility in reports of disambiguation pages with links. Note that we already have ((Dabprimary)), which gives prominent notice to editors disambiguating links to the page that some special consideration may be needed. As for the current documentation for this template, I think aside from being poorly written, it is somewhat misleading as well. While it may take some time to prepare a proper broad concept article, it generally takes very little time to convert something into a set index article (assuming the topic is appropriate to be converted to a SIA). Also, full disclosure, I recently removed about 50 pages using the template as can be seen seen here. older ≠ wiser 13:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
just a sidenote: I'm not sure removing the template without doing anything to address the underlying issues is really helpful: with or without the ((Dabprimary)) notice we'll see editors rush in to disambiguate links and we'll end up with legitimate future articles getting orphaned.Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That may be an issue with the contest mentality of WP:DPL where it can sometimes seem more important to get a high count of "fixes" regardless of whether the fixes are appropriate or not. That a page is on that list indicates there is a problem with the page -- and the solution might involve changing the page from a disambiguation page to something else rather than guessing at which link is the correct one. older ≠ wiser 14:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, in the present circumstances I don't think the list is doing that part of its job. If a dab page with more than a couple of incoming links is added, then chances are it will rapidly get orphaned (and removed from the list) before anyone has the opportunity to realise it's a potential WP:BCA or WP:SIA. Uanfala (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bkonrad, and lack of clarity over intended purpose and usage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the comments above by Andy Dingley and me give enough clarity about the contexts where the template should be used. Aside from that, I concur with Bkonrad's point that wider consensus might be needed for the general use of the template (as much as a I bemoan the fact that such wasn't sought for orphaning it). Uanfala (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, based on the limited number of places where I've seen this template used, it seems that it does more harm than good. Experienced editors should not need it. Without better documentation on how to recognize when it might have been helpful to use it, less experienced editors who try to use it will often get it wrong. I suppose it could serve to raise a flag calling for expert help, but I'd rather tell people to leave things alone if they're not sure what should be done. —jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 05:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, apparently no community support. Frietjes (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm inclined to suggest that maybe there should be a template of the sort "The terms on this page may be difficult to disambiguate due to similar definitions. Please take care." or similar, of a temporary nature. I would see such a template as essentially ((expert needed))--perhaps that could be used as a basis. The naming of this template is however not conducive to that goal, and this template should certainly not replace the standard ((disambig)) template. --Izno (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2016 (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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:FC Unirea Alba Iulia squad
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The template is currently not used in any article. The club plays in Liga III and has currently no notable players according to FC Unirea Alba Iulia#Current squad. Only Liga I is fully professional in Romania and "produces" notable players Kq-hit (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no need for squad navboxes for non-fully-professional teams. Frietjes (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2016 (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).
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).
Does not have a current squad anymore: On 14 July 2016, the club was declared bankrupt and subsequently replaced in Liga I by ACS Poli Timișoara. Kq-hit (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The club was refounded in Liga IV. The template can be use in the future. Rhinen
@Rhinen: Are there still notable players at Rapid in Liga IV? Only Liga I is a fully professional league in Romania. A navigation box without blue links does not serve any purpose. Kq-hit (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Liga IV Bucharest begin later so the team is not complete. Rhinen
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no need for squad navboxes for non-fully-professional teams. Frietjes (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2016 (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).
Template:FC Farul Constanţa squad
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The club is currently inactive after being excluded from Liga III in August 2016. Kq-hit (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The supporters refounded the club in Liga IV. The template can be use in the future for this club, named SSC Farul. Rhinen
@Rhinen: Are there still notable players at Farul in Liga IV? Only Liga I is a fully professional league in Romania. A navigation box without blue links does not serve any purpose. Kq-hit (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no need for squad navboxes for non-fully-professional teams. Frietjes (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2016 (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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:AVN BBW
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).
delete, not a major category. Frietjes (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this award has been determined to be not notable per AfD, so deletion of this template is appropriate and this template is no longer applicable for Wikipedia.Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator states, this is a navigation template with very little useful navigation, only two relevant entries. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
updated comment: This navbox now has only one entry now that the other linked article has just been deleted. Nothing left to navigate. • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- pointless template, Get rid. –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 14 September 2016 (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).
Template:RCD Espanyol women squad
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).
Template currently not being used. It appears this soccer club cut their budget and lost all (but one) of their decent/notable players to rival clubs. Sadly there is no imminent likelihood of this changing. Suggest deleting without prejudice to bringing it back if/when it can offer more more blue links. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, only one non-redlinked player. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no navigational value Kq-hit (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2016 (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).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was no consensusPlastikspork―Œ(talk) 21:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete, and convert to either ISBN, or possibly ASIN if there is no other alternative. Frietjes (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further discussion is needed relating to what we should do with this template's translucions if it's deleted. Do we substitute them? Should we remove the Amazon link first?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 09:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this as a quick way to link to the relevant source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When is amazon.jp a "relevant source"? How is it a "relevant source" in the current twelve transclusions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting a final time; in the absence of clear consensus on what to actually do with the transclusions, this will likely close as no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 04:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course, I wouldn't think of amazon.jp as a relevant source, but the fact that ((ASIN)) (whose sole purpose is to link to amazon's identifiers) gets over 1000 transclusions seems to suggest that such links do serve some purpose. But all this is in fact orthogonal to the matter: what the template under discussion does is mark up a Japanese Article Number and the link to amazon.jp seems to be incidental, as amazon happens to be the place where information about the corresponding item is likely to be found. So the question is whether we need a template for Japanese Article Numbers. Uanfala (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point! Yes, of course, we need templates for all such identifiers like JAN, UPC, EAN, ISBN. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Uanfala has made a very important point above. This template is not about some links to amazon.jp (although at present it does link there), it is about links to Japanese Article Numbers. If we find a better database of JANs, we could switch the links pointing to that database instead of amazon. We have similar templates for dozens of other types of IDs (f.e. ((UPC))s, ((EAN))s, ((ISBN))s, and many more), and there are strong reasons for them:
They make it easier to link to some kind of ID (in flow text, but also inside the id= parameter of ((citation)) series of templates instead of using ever changing and arbitrary links with sometimes cryptic or unneccessary parameters.
The templates allow central maintenance, f.e. if the link format changes or the database provider changes, all links can be updated to the new format with a single change to the template rather than trying to find all related links in all articles and update them manually (or by a bot).
Even if a particular type of ID would happen to fall into disuse in the future and we could no longer provide a link to a working database to look up individual entries, the template still serves the purpose of explaining the type of ID to readers - in this example, not everyone might know that JAN stands for Japanese Article Number, but not if the template outputs something like "JAN 12345".
They allow for a streamlined output format, which is of particular importance when used inside of citations or when more than one ID is given.
They can be searched for more easily (and reliably).
They provide the option to embed meta data.
They provide options to reverse-lookup information.
They provide the option to error check the input parameter(s).
Even if that particular JAN template is not frequently used (yet), I see it as part of a generic (and growing!) infrastructure. So, instead of deleting this template, we should identify more such IDs in use somewhere and provide templates for them as well.
For even easier future maintenance, the JAN template should be converted to use the ((Catalog lookup link)) template internally - if it survives the TfD, I volunteer to have a closer look and to possibly carry out that conversion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Db-x1
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).
Created by a now blocked user. CSD X1 & X2 are temporary criteria and there was no community discussion about creating deletion templates specific to CSD X1/X2. Safiel (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? The listing instructions contain the following: Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline. Does practice diverge? Uanfala (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would note that it is NOT the criteria for speedy deletion that are being discussed, rather just the templates. It was assumed that the generic speedy deletion template would be used in marking articles for deletion under CSD X1 & X2. The user that created these two templates was a disruptive sock that has since been blocked and he created these templates without discussion. Since it is just the templates and not the criteria that are being discussed, TfD is the proper forum. Safiel (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need to force people to type out the same CSD criterion in a more verbose way. This template should be deleted when X1/X2 are repealed. Pppery 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that we have X1 and X2 as criteria it makes sense to have templates for people to tag pages for deletion under those criteria, as with the others. There is no reason to force people to spell out the deletion rationale using the generic template. The fact that something useful was created by a sockpuppet does not mean we have to delete it. Hut 8.5 21:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was specific discussion to create the templates for each of the other speedy deletion criteria, either. It wasn't necessary in their cases any more than it was in these ones. And we can delete these as G5s and then immediately re-create them if that makes you happy. —Cryptic 01:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might be easier to tag pages as X1/X2 using the templates. 184.254.240.7 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but review later (say in six months' time). The templates are useful shorthand and help improve the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. However, there's a fine line between that and humiliating Neelix, so as soon as the templates stop receiving regular use and the RfD notices dry up on his talk page (say, none for three months) we should delete them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum This template merely describes current policy, and deletion discussions are not the place to discuss policy changes. Such discussion should occur at criteria for speedy delete, and if they decide this template is unwanted, it is speedy deletable for misrepresenting policy. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2016 (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).
Template:Star Trek Vulcan stories
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).
Possible WP:OR, there is not definition for what constitutes a "Vulcan story" or "Klingon story" and what doesn't. The only source that lists a similar set of episodes is this forum post or this one.-Prisencolin (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking a definable criteria for inclusion. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. With main characters of both those species, it could be argued that any episode featuring Worf or Spock prominently could be a Klingon or Vulcan story. I don't think there are any additional benefits to be gained from these templates. Miyagawa (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but there are also Ferengi and Romulan templates too. While the Romulan one could be warranted since there have been no Romulan main characters, DS9 makes the Ferengi one really difficult. Miyagawa (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not well-defined enough. How much Klingon involvement makes an episode be a "Klingon episode"? The mere appearance of a Klingon would clearly not be enough (otherwise, nearly all TNG and Voyager episodes, as well as nearly all episodes from the later DS9 seasons, would count); you need a good definition which is clearly objective. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:08, 13 September 2016 (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).