Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 1

: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. Cat is empty and AnomieBOT seems to have moved all of the article-space URLs to Talk. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|NRIS dead link|type=merge}}
• {{Tfd links|Dead link|type=merge}}

Propose merging Template:NRIS dead link with Template:Dead link.

Category that it feeds is empty. I am not sure why this would be created for reasons other than personal records. If so, it has outlived its usefulness. It may need to be deleted, but I suggest that it be merged. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:Oppose merger and delete or redirect {{t|NRIS dead link}} instead as redundant to {{t|dead link}}. The NRIS template's category is absolutely empty, despite it having over 700 transclusions. There is nothing to merge here. Because of the high number of transclusions, redirection is a possibility. --TL22 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

: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 Procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD (non-admin closure). --TL22 (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|WikiProject The Office (US)}}

This is a template for an inactive Wikiproject taskforce. Currently, it's just a redirect to the main Television template (which forgets to include the articles into the taskforce) and rather than have it as a wrapper for the Television project, it seems better to have people just put in the Television template with the Office taskforce in it. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wrong forum - Should be at WP:RFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Procedural close redirects are discussed at WP:RfD -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Relist at October 25. Primefac (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Japanese Supercars}}
• {{Tfd links|Japanese Supercars, 1957–present}}

The reason for nomination is that the term "supercar" is very highly subjective and whether the cars listed really are is highly debatable regardless that there is one or two that is considered to be a legitimate example. Also, this topic of subjectivity have been discussed to death everywhere on Wikipedia; so I think its best that this template is best gone. Donnie Park (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep one. I can understand your concerns, but you must consider that the list is based on diverse Japanese resources and not on any opinion. This research has been combined into one list, so that a Non-Japanese can easily recognize the Japanese Supercar and understand the difference between Japanese Sportscar and Japanese Supercar. Also the Japanese article of Supercar, etc. confirms the list. So in my opinion, the list have to be keep especially for Non-Japanese population, which have no access to the Japanese resources. Rrp13121989 (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

:*So I don't see how the many motoring presses who misuse the term (as they always do) make it a valid template as I find the term supercar, extremely debatable and most of all, are you trying to point out that because the motoring press will throw the supercar tag to anything that retail at $100,000, a template of debatable so-called "supercars" should exists, right? Also see the links below for the points that have been raised previously in case you've not been aware and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 9#Category:Super cars. Donnie Park (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

:** Sorry but I am not agree with you. According to you, nobody can clearly say what is a supercar, isn't it? Can you than answer me, why the Wikipedia article of supercar is listing supercars? And I mean not only the English one. In every language of that article you will find a list of supercars. Than why is only this template wrong, which conclude the same cars? So I am still for Keeping one. Rrp13121989 (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

:***{{ping|Rrp13121989}} So your point is because you think other language's Wikipedia article have a listing means it should exists here as well). What listing supercars as I can't speak personally for the other languages Wiki page neither the English language version of the supercar article as well as it has nothing to do with me nor what I have been working on. If you want to dispute this further, you should bring this up with WP:CARS, they'll be happily agree with you and support your argument but in my case, I am standing by my ground to delete as this will lead to other templates such as German, Italian, American and British "supercars" consisting of mid-price ($200k above) or less sportscars that are really not just like your's and do let me know if supercar is an internationally recognized classification by NCAP. Donnie Park (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete both. As per the nominator, the scope of these templates is too subjective and vague. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used to "confirm" the content of this template. --DAJF (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete both. As per the nominator, the scope of these templates is too subjective and vague. OSX (talk • contributions) 20:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep one. If the list is not influent by any opinions and is based on resources, which can be trusted, so there is no point to delete the list. And it is not a bad idea to bring the Japanese supercars together to one list. EmblemSaga 11:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

:*Also see my comment above.

:** Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 11#Car Classifications

:** Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 11#Supercar eradication

:** Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 12#Return of the Supercar category

:** Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 13#Supercars

:** Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 17#Cars, sports, super or hyper

:** Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercars

:** Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 11#Category:Supercars

:** Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 22#Category:Supercar

:* Donnie Park (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

:* See also my comment above. Rrp13121989 (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relist at Oct 25. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Proposed articles}}

Unused template. Not really sure what the purpose of the template is. Mar4d (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• it is being used, in a handful of tables. See e.g. Portal:Khowar/Projects. I have disabled the TfD notice as that was breaking it; it should be clearer now how it works. It does not conform with our guidelines for colour, but that is easily fixed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:: Please remove the deletion template, Portal:Khowar/Projects is used in Portal:Khowar I have fixed the problem. -- Thanks Raki 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

:::The notice has been disabled so it no longer affects the pages. It will be removed after the discussion is concluded, normally after seven days.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

: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. Breaks WP:REDLINK as mentioned below. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Noredlink}}

Quoting WP:Red link, “Good red links help Wikipedia”. They should not be hidden as then no-one will know they are there. If they are inappropriate, such as amateur/junior team members who are unlikely to become professional, then remove them. Red links serve many purposes, and hiding them breaks many of their uses. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete contravention of WP:REDLINK ; if the supposed link will not be notable enough to have an article, then any link that comes out of this template will likely be a mislink, so encourages mislining by hiding links -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, because this disrupts the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia by hiding red links. --Luis150902 (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, Junior riders are for 99% not notable, so not "good red links' and so on many places with junior results no wikilinks are made. However because some of them (let's say 20%) become a professional and notable years later, it would be good to have the link there. But nobody will do so. WP:Redlinks says: red links must be "relevant to the context|everywhere they are relevant to the context]] for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia". For junior results this is not the case. With this template you don't create wikilinks, but save the wikilink when a page years later will be created. I do agree this template can only be used on a selected amount of pages in WP, as per all the reasons given above. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment:Eventually, to let it become more clear, the template could be renamed into something like: Template:Juniorresultlink. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete if they don't warrant an article at present, don't link them at all. If they deserve an article now, then give them a red link so that the missing article is obvious - something this template doesn't permit when it should. If they become notable later, someone can add the links then - it's not difficult. A template that also hides links to disambiguation pages is a bad idea, since it makes cleaning up such links harder (but that functionality could and should be removed if the template is kept). Bencherlite^Talk 15:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - If a red link is inappropriate, just remove the link rather than using this template which just wastes space. If it is appropriate and it isn't linked, just link it. --TL22 (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, "on notbale" people, will get a wikilink if they become notable. That is better than no wikilink. Besides of that, the template is widely used on wiki's in other languages. See :is:Snið:Ekkirauður and :no:Mal:Ikkerød. MFriedman (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. This template might be useful especially for junior athletes, of which one can never know if they are going to be "relevant" or not, but still one can never know. In the German Wikipedia I decided to delete the brackets after some years, after I found out that the young athlete stopped cycling: [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI-Bahn-Weltmeisterschaften_der_Junioren_bis_2009]. This might be another good solution, and I understand the idea behind it, because I know the "problem". --Nicola (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• It just hides incoming redlinks, so will encourage mislinkage, since you can't just see what links here when creating a page on a redlink, thus when a page on a different subject is created, will have a bunch of incorrect incoming bluelinks, and the new article will not be flagged as an orphan. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• It uses #ifexist and that means the pages do show up in WhatLinksHere, as I once mentioned at Help:What links here#Overview. See for example Special:WhatLinksHere/Tarlan Mammadov. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Which is badly broken. Visit the first article and you cannot see the red link. You can find the name but it looks like normal text, so you might think the WP software is broken. And that is in a very short article with a very distinctive name. A longer article it would be much harder to find, the name might be used more than once, or the it might not be so distinctive a title and so could be harder to identify. Once (if) the article is created the link is visible but then the template is really pointless, doing nothing except confusing editors who come across when editing doing nothing and serving no purpose.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Works contrary to the whole idea of WP:REDLINK. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).