Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 21

< March 20	March 22 >

March 21 edit

Template:Infobox London Tramlink route 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 relisted on 2015 March 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:13, 29 March 2015 (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:RXNO cat 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) 19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RXNO cat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is just a replacement for text that is placed on a number of categories stating that the categories are part of a classification scheme from elsewhere. Beyond the fact that it's just text, I'm not sure why it's important to mention where the classification scheme came from: either it's a relevant classification scheme here or it's not. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2015 (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) 22:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, rarely used and not particularly useful information to have in every single category. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2015 (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:AZBilliards 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, if someone would like it moved to userspace or projectspace, let me know. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Citation template used at one article. As it states, all it does is provide the publisher, location, and work parameters within cite web. I also get some warnings when I try to access the website which I'm not certain constitutes a reliable source. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and if it were deleted or userspaced there should be no prejudice against later re-deployment. This is a routine single-source citation template, intended to be used more broadly, of course, but WP:CUE has few active editors, so that might not be for some time. It does no harm as a template, but isn't seeing much use yet. This one in particular could see immediate broader use, replacing and consistently formatting other citations to this source, and there are many of them, especially in pool (pocket billiards) player bio articles. And, yes, the source is known to be reliable; it's one of the top four editorially controlled pool and billiards publications in the US, along with Billiards Digest, Inside Pool, and Pool & Billiard Magazine. The fact that it's online instead of on dead trees doesn't magically make it unreliable. (All of the other three also have online editions, BTW.) Questions of source reliability are a WT:RS matter, not a TfD matter. The URLs in the template, as with any template referring to an external online source, need to be checked regularly and, if necessary, updated to compensate for changes at the target site. That's a template maintenance issue for the template's talk page, not a TfD matter. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:21, 2 March 2015 (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) 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to subpage of WP:CUE for convenient substing or copy/pasting. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AZBilliards citations are now used 66 times on Wikipedia, obviously on cuesport related articles. I concur will all of SMcCandlish's statements above. (Brian T. McDaniel (tAlk) 17:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, it is only used to save entering two fields,  SMcCandlish writes "It does no harm as a template" -- it does some good for those who use it (saves typing 2 fields) it does harm because it is yet another template that editors are expected to know about, so given the good and the harm I think it is more harmful than good for the project. I am not sure where the 66 times comes from because it now seems that it is no longer in use for any Wikipedia articles. -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy/wikiprojectify and make subst-only, as this does not account for varying citation styles, and doesn't have much content beyond a simple wrapper —PC-XT+ 03:10, 29 March 2015 (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:WWW-MV 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 for now as a substitution wrapper and convert to use CS1. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WWW-MV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template's intended use was for references imported from German wikipedia with the parameters not changed into English. It's used on a single page. Parameters should be converted to the English ones and the template deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to a wrapper for the English equivalent, as is standard practice. This is a major biographical source and the template will be useful as we translate more and more articles from German Wikipedia. There are now over 20 links and I am importing more from de.wiki. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see Category:Citation Style 1 templates using German translations but I don't understand its purpose. Shouldn't we be moving those templates into the current Citation style 1 templates? I don't think the goal should be to keep templates in other languages here as it just adds complexity for no reason. I mean, I'd understand a clean-up project where templates like these are kept but with some back-end warning that they need to be merged/converted to the English ones but just having templates in another language seems unneeded. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally there's an English Wiki equivalent for such templates, so what happens is we create a wrapper i.e. the German language template is modified to a) translate commonly used data and b) point the German parameters at their English ones in the English template (the English template may have to be modified to accept extra parameters, but that's fine). The result is that the template looks like the English one even though its parameters are in German. The next step is someone creates a bot that substitutes the wrapper template in the article with the English template. A good example is Infobox Berg where I can import the German template, it instantly translates into English and displays like the English Infobox Mountain and then within minutes a bot substitutes it for the English version. Very neat!

In this case there is no English equivalent, so we'd have to create it first, then turn this template into a wrapper and then get a bot to substitute it. I could do the first, I'm less expert at wrappers and have no experience of writing bots. Help! --Bermicourt (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2015 (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) 22:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now, but perhaps as something that can be substituted, but please do rewrite it to use Template:Citation rather than Template:Literatur. Frietjes (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2015 (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:FN and Template:FNZ 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) 19:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

These two were imported from German Wikipedia (see de:Vorlage:FN and de:Vorlage:FNZ) and are redundant to {{ref}} and {{note}}, as demonstrated here. Alakzi (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:
1. {{ref}} and {{note}} appear to be deprecated, so are they the right replacements?
2. Why would deletion be better than the normal wrapper solution for these templates? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would've personally used {{efn}} and {{notelist}}, but {{ref}} and {{note}} were the most alike in functionality. I don't know if it would be better. Alakzi (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {{fnote3}} is deprecated but still in use with almost 20k uses of {{ref}}. But {{FN}} is {{fnote1}} which I went through and updated to {{fnote}} a few years ago. -- Gadget850^talk 23:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and update to {{fnote}}. Closer: Ping me and I will update. I still have my AWB regexes for this. -- Gadget850^talk 23:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What should be used? Grouped <ref>s? Alakzi (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my update to Thuringia using {{efn}}/{{notelist}}. See {{efn}} if you are not familiar with it. -- Gadget850^talk 11:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~I am, but this usage is not documented at Help:Footnotes.~~ Scratch that, I see it now. Alakzi (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change to be a wrapper of the most relevant templates, to avoid manual conversion when translating articles. That is standard practice. If need be a bot can come along afterwards and replace them as with Template:Infobox mountain for example. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These templates have been around for two years and are uses on only 32 pages. As demonstrated at Thuringia, updating to the current system is not an onerous task. If needed, I can do a help page. -- Gadget850^talk 21:07, 26 February 2015 (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) 21:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to have an obvious replacement, isn't particularly used (except) in translation. Gadget's offer seems reasonable for that need. --Izno (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So who's going to sort out the wrapper and substitution bot? It's all very well saying they're not used (except) in translation - but that's their whole purpose! It saves us translators hours of repetitive and totally unnecessary work. And there aren't many of us... --Bermicourt (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd have been OK with keeping these as subst:itution wrappers, like we do with {{Infobox Burg}} and others, but the coding is incompatible with Help:Footnotes. Alakzi (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can see how this could be done, but with only 30 uses is it worth it? See this change in Thuringia. -- Gadget850^talk 15:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - {{notelist|refs= and the closing braces can't be substituted. Alakzi (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2015 (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:Upcoming Sports 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) 19:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Upcoming Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Other than replacing "future" with "upcoming", its functionality looks basically the same as Template:Future sport, which was deprecated and deleted per the result of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Also, posting a tag stating that information may change rapidly "as time progresses" really had no informational consequence, since as basically stated on Wikipedia:General disclaimer the content of any article can be recently "changed, vandalized or altered". Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete DB-REPOST -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2015 (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:Amrita Keerti Puraskar 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) 19:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amrita Keerti Puraskar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2015 (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) 00:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've not even got an article on this award, so delete per WP:NAVBOX. Alakzi (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2015 (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.