Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 13

< December 12	December 14 >

December 13 edit

Template:Medal of Honor chronology edit

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) 21:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medal of Honor chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template, as games aren't connected plot-wise and there is already a {{Medal of Honor series}}. This template is divided into 'historical' arc and a 'modern' arc. The historical arc consists of 12 games which take place in World War II. The original game: "The game takes place near the end of World War II, (mid 1944-mid 1945)". Its sequel: "The plot of the game begins before the original Medal of Honor, when Manon fights for the French Resistance before America entered the war." Soetermans. T / C 14:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GAMECRUFT. The stories/continuity can just be covered in the respective articles, but the template of titles by itself doesn't have much use, and there's already a template that list all the games in a more appropriate, out-of-universe manner. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per WP:GAMECRUFT and deletion of Template:Grand Theft Auto chronology and others. Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT and Frietjes's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:06, 18 December 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:Bigg Boss Kannada edit

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bigg Boss Kannada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN, can be solved with normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 03:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kan 26 (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC) : Template is required for this TV series as new season details are added every year. Nav box would organize better. Please do not delete this template.[reply]

Comment. It needs checking for WP:BIDIRECTIONALity. Once all the links to sponsors, duplicate links, etc., are removed, I suspect there will be little left, in which case it will be a likely delete. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with {{BBKHM}} might be appropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kan 26 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC) : Please see Template:Bigg Boss and Template:BBHM. It's the same scenario here. Why should this template be deleted when it is necessary in the future? I don't know to merge templates.[reply]

yes, but according to WP:NENAN template should have at least five valid (= blue) links, not counting the back links or links to "related articles". Your template has just three valid links. The Banner talk 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with {{BBKHM}}. Frietjes (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kan 26 (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC) : I understand, please proceed with the deletion. In future, can I create the same template with the same title when there are more than 5 valid links?[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:WLeague NUJ edit

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 substitute and delete per this and related discussions at WT:FOOTY. However, if someone wants to create a "substitute only" merged template/typing aid, I see no consensus strong consensus here against it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WLeague NUJ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague AU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague BR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague CCM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague CU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague MV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague PG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague QR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague SFC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WLeague WSW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates only contains a piped wikilink, it is better to actually write the piped wikilink then to use these templates. Articles that use these templates could substitute the templates, and the templates can be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 11:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. these template are used very frequently --> on all the pages of players who play (currently or in the past) in the W-League, as well as W-League pages, and W-League teams' season pages. They are typing-aid templates, and function like the A-League help templates. --SuperJew (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of the A-League help templates, but those should be deleted as well if the WLeague templates are deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete all per nom, and redundant to {{fb team XX}}, which is also now deprecated. Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it better to actually write the piped wikilink then to use these templates? the templates are first of all shorter, which is important, as they are used in many pages. secondly, it is easier to update the links if a page is moved for a reason (for example: Queensland Roar became Brisbane Roar, Newcastle United Jets became Newcastle Jets). Think of it as the principles of code reuse in programming - you don't want to type the same things a million times, but rather use constants or classes, so that if you make a change you only have to make it in one place. --SuperJew (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is no need to update the links after a page is moved, that is what we have redirects for, and WP:NOTBROKEN actually discourages to do so. For instance, Template:ALeague QR produces [[Brisbane Roar FC|Queensland Roar]], but the readers would have gotten to the same page if the template was replaced by either [[Queensland Roar]] or [[Queensland Roar FC|Queensland Roar]]. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the other hand, redirects mess up bolding in templates and also when linked to a section anchor in an article. And anyway, I think the most important function of the template is the typing-aid it gives. --SuperJew (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If Queensland Roar became Brisbane Roar and the template is updated, all previous seasons list the wrong team now. Those should stay at Queensland road. -Koppapa (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These templates do absolutely nothing other than replace simple text/wikilinks. – Pee Jay 13:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to ask you people who are for deletion what the reason really is? to clear room on the server? I doubt that is the problem.
How much have you edited season pages of teams? It is a very useful typing aid which helps a lot, and it has also been around for a long time. --SuperJew (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep - they could be substituted but why delete them if they help write articles? Christian75 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These templates are used and maintained by editors of the W-League articles. With no WP guideline presented in support of the deletion nomination, I see no valid reason why they should be deleted. Hmlarson (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yeah, you could write them all out instead, but how/why is that "better"? In other words, what is the reason for this nomination? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The comments above for keeping have no basis in policy. Such templates as these are deleted routinely because they duplicate very basic functionality — the use of which makes it difficult for among other things tracking back links and cleaning pages. They negatively impact automated and semi-automated tools used for editing as well. Per Frietjes as well. --Izno (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per SuperJew. All deleting will achieve is making someone waste a lot of time cleaning almost every single A-League and W-League article. I'd like to see some evidence that they hinder automated editing tools. These templates are useful and aside from some policy that doesn't make sense I don't see any good reason to delete them. --timsdad ^(talk) 05:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it looks to me that most of the keep-votes are based on WP:ITSUSEFUL, while the delete-votes are based on the Wikipedia:Template namespace guideline which says that "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." I do however agree that these templates are useful, so a compromise could be to keep the templates and use them as WP:SUBST'ed templates, as Christian75 suggested, like the Template:Fc should be used. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking out that piece of the guideline—I went looking for it the other day prior to my delete !vote. I'd be fine if it were subst'ed myself, but I do not think that it would remain that way very long. --Izno (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute all and Delete - utterly unnecessary, it is no quicker to use than a conventional wikilink, and templates are not supposed to be for things like this anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is much quicker and easier to use. The Template is 14-15 characters with only 2-3 characters changing between teams (very easy for copy-paste jobs), while the conventional wikilink is 32-65 characters (2-4 times longer!) --SuperJew (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute and delete or merge - per reasons already given above by various users (Templates are not primarily shortcuts specifically for typing, or they would take far fewer server resources, though there could be a JavaScript made for this purpose...) -PC-XT+ 09:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding support for a merge to one substitution template, per CyberFour, below. -PC-XT+ 23:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no knowledge of American sports, but would it help if these templates are combined into one template? So instead of {{WLeague NUJ}} you could write {{WLeague|NUJ}}, with Template:WLeague giving a link to the correct team (using {{#switch}} or a similar function). I agree with Mentoz that users can be prompted to substitute the templates (rather than just transcluding them), though the templates themselves may be kept if they're really helpful. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work great if the problem really is the amount of templates. Also, it's Australian soccer teams ;) --SuperJew (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the "W-League" discussed here is not the "W-League" from the W-League article, which is a Canadian/U.S. soccer league. Sadly I don't know anything about Australian soccer either (about the only soccer I ever watch are the Eredivisie and international matches

). Anyway, I don't think it matters much if there are ten templates or just one, though since each template is just a simple piped link, I thought they may as well be combined. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a draft on a combined template at User:SiBr4/WLeague, which appears to be working (both when transcluded and substituted). SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me -PC-XT+ 02:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'd support a merged template, as long as the template are substituted when used in articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support marking it as substitute only when the documentation is created. -PC-XT+ 23:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that this is open again, would it be an option to re-relist? Only three editors commented since my proposal to merge the templates (don't know if that's a valid reason for relisting). Also, if the consensus is to merge or delete the W-League templates, should it apply to the A-League templates mentioned above too (which are essentially in the same situation)? SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisted only once for over one month

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. These "link-only" templates are confusing to those who begin editing the articles that use them. It is much clearer (to editors) if a simple wikilink is used. Such templates have been deleted before and these should be deleted for the same reasons. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, this is not the way to go. Agree with nom. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:40, 28 December 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:Attack Attack! edit

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attack Attack! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN, due to linking to less than five articles outside of the subject. STATic message me! 23:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, has enough links. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only has four links to stable articles and a fifth one is up for BLPPROD. The band also disbanded this year and turned into a spinoff band, so it is extremely unlikely that we will see more links added to this template. STATic message me! 17:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With Caleb Shomo no longer up for PROD, navbox has 2 musicians and 3 albums linked. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 16:43, 13 December 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.