Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 16 August 18 >

August 17 edit

Template:Butuan Polysports Complex 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 08:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all redirects. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 17 August 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:Busroute 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 17 August 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:Busoni operas 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates navigation found in {{Ferruccio Busoni}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 17 August 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:Bush16 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 17 August 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:Burmese stub 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 08:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 17 August 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:Bundesstraße 31 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 08:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and broken. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 17 August 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:Bulgarian website 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 08:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused duplicate of {{official website}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 17 August 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:Buildcat 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:Buildcat (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This looks like a subst-ed template. --Izno (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark as substitute only. This seems to almost certainly be a substitute-only template. Additionally, the creator of this template (pinging Neddyseagoon) doesn't appear to have been notified, so they had no means to tell us it was a substitute only template. ~ Rob13Talk 08:41, 25 August 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:Bucharest bus base fare 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 08:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 17 August 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:U.S. government agencies 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:U.S._government_agencies (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

used in one article about a non-US government agency. Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 17 August 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:Google translate 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).

The result of the discussion was procedural keep for now. The VPP discussion linked below is ongoing, and its outcome obviously affects this template. ~ Rob13Talk 08:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only 14 transclusions, some in citations. Not clear why we would ever be linking to a translation site. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic example of an underused template. There are in fact thousands of external links to Google Translate from Wikipedia. This doesn't mean we need this template in particular, but of course we do have similar templates like {{Google Books}}, {{YouTube}}, {{Wayback}}, etc. --bender235 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall any policy decision regarding linking to machine translations in articles. but, this search shows that there are thousands of links to google translate within articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely that most of those are in subtemplates of {{Expand language}} (like {{Expand Bulgarian}}), rather than in article prose. The parent template has around 48.5K transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
try using this search to see the context. Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just removed one instance, in a citation, here. There was absolutely no need for that. We don't do it for the vast majority of our non-English sources. Likewise, here's a removal from an external links section. We should not be pushing people to one online service, when they may prefer another; or prefer to use a local app, or indeed be able to read the language concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted about the wider issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Links to Google Translate. I'm happy to suspend this nomination until that is resolved, if others agree that's the best way forward. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 19 August 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:JOI 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:JOI (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:03, 25 August 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:Cite Catskill 3500 Club 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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since unused, and questionably reliable source. Use/reuse seems unlikely.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:52, 20 August 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:Best current practice 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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if this were not unused, it should be deleted, since it's a gross MOS violation and an accessibility nightmare. Our readers do not need to be visually browbeaten that there's a difference in technical or legal documents between "may" and "must" especially if the quoted material already puts these things in SCREAMING ALL-CAPS and would be quoted with some form of emphasis on the words already.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the offending HTML regarding the accessibility nightmare. I believe the allcaps piece of it can also be resolved trivially if consensus were to keep the template. However, I expect all of the words in this template only to be found in quotation in the mainspace, for the most part, which probably should not be changed (using this template). --Izno (talk) 19:51, 22 August 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:Beacon 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:Beacon (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Used on one article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Used extensively in an article I just chanced upon. Could be replaced there by individual citations but that's very tedious for no benefit. Template does no harm. — JFG talk 11:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – malfunctional and unencyclopedic pseudo-sourcing, and against WP:EL. All this template does is spit up imprecise results from an off-site search engine, that mostly do not pertain to the subject at all. See the very first example, for Giordano Bruno, in that article. The code is this: {{Beacon|author=Bruno}}, producing this: Beacon

. Go ahead and click on that and see what you get. This is not one whit different from putting {{Google custom|rollingstone.com|Jackson}} into an article. While we do have {{Google custom}}, it's because we use it extensively on talk pages. That rationale does not apply to this {{Beacon}} template, and its explicit intent appears to be to be used inappropriately in articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Template links to trusted, targeted information resource directly relevant to the page ... diametrically different to a generalised and global Google search. The template is relevant to works and authors censored by the Vatican, and the template references, and uses embedded parameters to restrict the results to Vatican-censored sources (this is NOT a site-search). A Google search for "John Smith" provides no context and is almost useless. A search for "John Smith" within a directory of brewers, or a list of UK Labour politicians is completely different. I completely fail to understand the rationale behind this discussion: what is the suggested alternative?? delete everything and leave the lines unreferenced???? transclude the template and render the link less comprehensible and more fragile?????? If you can improve the targeting of the links, do so ... it's the WP way. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anything, the links should be in citations, and should link to specific pages like [1], not searches like [2] as at present. Note also that the link in the final rows, for Alberto Moravia, Nikos Kazantzakis and Simone de Beauvoir, return no results. The link for Anatole France reruns 71 results, 70 (98.59!) of which are not for that author. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 22 August 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:CPSNPIT 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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External link template created 2012; single use, with no other links to the target sub-site on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This looked at first like a single-source citation template to Cuban material on a Cuban player's career in Cuban baseball, thanks to the lack of proper documentation. But it does not serve that function; it's just a general single-site news search for Major League Baseball news in Spanish, by player name. I have no idea what "with no other links to the target sub-site on Wikipedia" is supposed to mean, and it doesn't seem to be a deletion rationale. The deletion rationale is that we don't provide random search engine links in article text, not in the EL section and not as citations, and no one appears to be using this template as a talk page research tool, so it doesn't serve an encyclopedic purpose for readers or encyclopedia-building purpose for editors.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:22, 20 August 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:They Think It's All Over 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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have cast and crew in navboxes per longstanding consensus. A navbox just detailing presenters and panelists in a game show is just an extension of the same principle. Navboxes like this just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others. For the same reason we have the guideline WP:PERFCAT for categories. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is now: delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Contrast this with, e.g. Template:The Walking Dead, where the content is about the production (seasons, notable episodes, etc.), and about the characters, not the cast/crew. We don't do cast/crew in navboxes, and contestants are cast, just as presenters are both crew and cast.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:26, 20 August 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:German law section 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:German_law_section (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complex external links template, supporting twenty jurisdictions, but with only five transclusions in all. Documentation is in German. See also Template:§§'s TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Maybe there is something worth merging from this into Template:Cite German law. I agree that Template:§§ seems to be pointless. Tthe discussion at its TfD shows that its code can be replaced with a simple [http://url.goes.here/page Title] link, and it isn't really plausible that someone is going to remember all the parameter quirkiness for several different national jurisdictions – almost all lawyers, legal scholars, and law students (the most likely people to be using such a template) are specialists, not generalists in the legal codes of a swath of countries.

    Back to Template:German law section: It uses code like {{German law section|433|BGB|dejure|text=§§ 433 ff.}} to generate output like "{{German law section/sandbox|433|BGB|dejure|text=§§ 433 ''ff.''}}" which can be replaced with [http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/433.html §§ 433 ''ff.''] (about the same length, much much lower operational complexity). So, I guess the question is this: Are there (or will there be) a significant number of editors who know the "BGB", "dejure" and "443 ff." parts (perhaps because they are German lawyers, and/or have a paper book at hand, who do not already have the URL, or cannot more quickly find it than they can assemble this template? I have to think that German Wikipedia has this template for a reason, just like en.wiki has some complicated ones for US, UK, etc., law. That a template is "complicated" to non-experts in the subject matter is not a deletion rationale, especially if it is not complicated to experts who will use it, otherwise we'd delete about 1,000 templates right this second. "Not used much yet" is a weak one as well when the template's documentation hasn't been translated yet, and it was not properly categorized at Category:Europe law templates until just now. I'm not !voting keep because I think the question I asked probably has an answer of "not on English Wikipedia", but that's just an assumption of which I might get disabused.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • It would be wholly inappropriate to merge this complex monstrosity into a citation template which is for citing a single source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 22 August 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:BTS line links 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:BTS_line_links (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is being used to create bold coloured text within article prose, which is against the manual of style. Paul_012 (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Paul 012: Do you have examples, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Siam BTS Station and Bang Sue MRT Station. Its use in tables, such as in MRT (Bangkok) and Sukhumvit Line, is also undesirable. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Paul 012: What happened when you removed them - were you reverted? What happened when you discussed the matter with the editors involved? Please provide diffs or talk-page links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The editors using the template—there are multiple accounts, but I'm not sure how many individuals—appear to be non-talkers; i.e. they never engage in or respond to talk page discussions. I'd removed the colours and explained why they were undesirable back in 2009, but they crept back in. Given the amount of affected pages and the past unresponsiveness of involved editors, I thought having a centralised discussion to establish consensus might be more conducive to resolving the issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending fuller discussion of this entire approach. This particular transit systems's templates shouldn't be singled out. Rather, an RfC at WT:MOS, "advertised" at WT:MOSICONS, WT:MOSACCESS, etc., and the transit-related wikiprojects needs to come to a consensus if we ever want to do anything like this at all, including in tables (which is the intent of the templates, and needs to be better documented in the regard – it says not to use them in running prose, but not where to use them). We've been over essentially the same issue several times before, e.g. with regard to people using US highway sign icons in running prose, and consequent attempts to delete the templates entirely (but with the result that they have largely been constrained to tables, navboxes, infoboxes, and other tabular presentations, much like flag icon templates, which is of course the motherlode of such long-running "providing extra visual information vs. just damned decorating" debates. Regardless of that eventual RfC (which honestly I think should be started immediately, and include more than just these templates, but any similar ones for other transit systems), two of the output options of this template are WP:ACCESS failures: The text output for both {{BTS line links|Sukhumvit}} and {{BTS line links|BRT}} has to be changed to black, because the white-on-pale-color output ({{BTS line links|BRT}}) has insufficient contrast. Also, the template's |2= parameter and what it does has to be documented; it clearly does change the output in the table of examples, but to what end is unclear. Anyway, that the template is occasionally being misused (assuming its actually intended use is legit) is not a deletion rationale. Even rampant misuse is often treated as not a deletion rationale, as I've learned the hard way in trying to get rid of the pull quote templates, about 99.8% of the uses of which are MoS-violating and policy-violating, PoV-pushing abuses of it – more than 100,000 examples of it to date, probably the largest anti-WP:CCPOL memetic cancer in Wikipedia. If that problem isn't enough for TfD to act on, then this isn't certainly isn't, without a clearer consensus what to do about the desire to colorize transit-line names in tables. I suspect the answer will be the same as it is for sports teams and universities: Do not apply "livery" colors except in places that already serve a partially decorative function, like infoboxes and navboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since the nomination doesn't actually explain why the template isn't useful or needs to be deleted apart from just "it's against the rules!", which by itself isn't a valid rationale for deletion. Considering that Bangkok's rail lines are often associated with their colours, the template makes it easy to identify the lines as opposed to just plain text links - example. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 05:31, 25 August 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_17&oldid=1122228576"