Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 27 August 29 >

August 28 edit

Template:Cleanup-bare URLs 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 Snow keep --Mdann52talk to me! 13:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-bare URLs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All citations which link to websites may be subject to link rot, not just the ones with bare urls. We should get rid of this template and replace it with one that refers to the ugliness and uninformative nature of bare urls, unless it already exists. If it does please tell me about it. Jodosma (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The wording may be a little inaccurate or misleading, but that's an argument for editing the template, not deleting it. I would support an edit, particularly one linking to an explanation of how to replace bare-URL citations with full citations of archived pages (such as those hosted by archive.org), which are much less susceptible to link rot.
It's also worth considering that this is an extremely widely used template. Its talk page also specifies that it's used by two common edit automation tools, and requests that proposed changes be brought to the attention of those tools' users, but it doesn't look like that happened. — Control.valve (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fix the template if it really needs to be fixed. Eeekster (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Control.valve. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: No argument for deletion has been advanced. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course all URIs can rot but if I know the name of the author, the title of the work, its publisher, and date those are helpful for finding archives, mirrored versions, or a new live URI of the work. {{barelinks}} is used by folks who clean up references to insert this helpful information. Since it is demonstrably useful and used as such to make the encyclopedia better, I don't understand deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the nominator that the template should be speedily kept and cleaned up. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per Koavf. Also, can we get some eyes on splitting and AFD for List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although annoying to see this template on an article, there is no reason to delete it given above. Just change the text if it needs improving. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful template. The nominator has a point though, a second template is needed. — Lentower (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh keep This is, in fact, probably the most common issue I see in new articles. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While all web links are subject to rot, those that are URL-only are most likely to become useless when the link becomes dead. When a NYT article that cites author, title, date/issue, and URL loses its URL to rot, the rest is still useful, and can often serve as the basis to relocate a valid URL. Specious argument. Tag is necessary, valuable, and should remain. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss changes on its talk page or a more appropriate venue, such as one of the tools' talk pages —PC-XT+ 05:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the bare URL is a link to a published document with ISBNs, DOIs, PMIDs, etc, then the linkrot will not occur if it is properly documented, because you could look up ISBNs, DOIs, etc, yourself. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per all above. I would prefer to see this template used at the top of reference sections rather than the top of articles though. --LukeSurl t c 12:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep i also support LukeSurl in preferred usage in the refs sections. unlike many templates that help advise our readers about the quality of the content they are going to read, this is purely a backstage clean up which is valuable for long term quality of the article, it provides no real value to the current reader. but that is a discussion for another forum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is the most useful and important maintenance template we have. If it needs rephrasing, please do so. Deletion is not an option. Fylbecatulous talk 12:52, 29 August 2014 (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:GoogleBoekenCitations 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 G7'ed. Principal/only author requested deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template appears to only be used on a single article, and is considered to be duplicated by other cleanup tags. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This template is obsolete, so it's OK to delete it in this case. Jarble (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2014 (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:Hero of Ukraine 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) 04:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hero of Ukraine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect'ed to Template:HOU, of which this was probably an accidental duplicate. Template:HOU is the same thing, and is currently used. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and replace {{HOU}} Keep this version and replace all instances of {{HOU}} with this template. "HOU" is an opaque name with no indication of what it is, there's no documentation on that template either, so it's a rather poor template. HOU is a disambiguation page. Instead, delete {{HOU}} and replace all transclusions with this template. The redirect should not have been emplaced while the discussion was in progress. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: That sounds like a good solution to me. DH85868993 (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reverse the redirect with support for redirecting or replacing {{HOU}} per above agreement. —PC-XT+ 04:56, 1 September 2014 (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:Newts Recreation Center 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; deleted as G2 by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newts Recreation Center (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear (to me). DH85868993 (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if it has a clear purpose. I'm thinking speedy delete. —PC-XT+ 05:11, 29 August 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_28&oldid=1131475544"