Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 8 February 10 >

February 9 edit

Template:Delete page 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 relist at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 29. ~ RobTalk 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Delete page with Template:La.
For background, see WP:HD#Templated links with specified deletion rationale. Basically, I asked if there were a way to have {{la}} supply a deletion rationale, e.g. by adding a parameter that would be automatically filled into the rationale box when you clicked the "delete" link. As it's not possible, Edgars2007 created this new template, explained how to use it, and concluded with But it may be better to include in the main {{la}} template, an opinion with which I agree. I'm just seeking further opinions as to whether this would be a good idea, as well as technical assistance in carrying that out. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have no objection on the merits, but Template La is transcluded pretty much everywhere - 278,112 pages as of just now. It's an easy to remember template with only two characters, and one of the most useful in the entire project. I'd be triple cautious about mucking about with it. Might be better to use a deletion-specific version, such as {{la-d}} or some such. {{lad}} doesn't work, because then you get (in Ladino) instead. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per my comments below, as premature and overbroad. We can add the parameter to deletion-specific templates without changing La or impacting its core function. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm having trouble seeing what Delete page even does differently. I would also recommend resolving this TFD as quickly as possible since the deletion template is breaking transclusions all over the project. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maintain Template La due to its inherent usefulness on notice boards and name the new version with the deletion rationale something different such as {{la-d}}. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as "original proposer") Yes, we can close this merge proposal. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This idea is not to get rid of {{la}} by renaming it or merging it anywhere: the idea is to merge in the feature of {{delete page}}, whereby providing text in a parameter causes that text to be prefilled in the deletion rationale box when you click "delete". Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template is usually called from another template - {{afd2}}, as an example. Why ask for a parameter? Could we not add a switch or something that adds the full pagename if the template is on a page beginning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? The template could then add the parameter. In fact, hold on, {{afd1}} does precisely this - if you delete an article using the toplink, and that article has a properly formatted AFD tag, then the link for the deletion debate is filled into the deletion rationale box. This is exactly what we're trying to do, yes? Except the idea was to do it for redirects? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with switches, so I can't offer an opinion. I'm using it at User:Anomie/Neelix list/frogs, where it's definitely helpful for each line to have a link that takes me directly to a complete deletion page; no other template of which I'm aware has this capability. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then use {{lan}}. It will automatically fill in "G6 - Neelix" as the deletion rationale, rather than wait for a parameter. So you use it as {{lan|Example}} and it will do the rest. I think this will accomplish what you need for this situation, and it will table changes to {{la}} for another day. (And, if lan works, it might serve as proof of concept for those future changes.) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But what if I want to use this template in a different situation in the future? Won't I have to edit the template? I want a template with which I can replace [[article]] with {{template|article|rationale}} and have the rationale automatically supplied when I click the delete link; find-and-replace is significant here, since I need to be able to make all the changes with a few button clicks in Notepad. As written, {{delete page}} does all this, so if retaining the template instead of merging it is the best way to fulfill my needs, I'm fine with that; I just don't want to get stuck with a template that only works in one situation or a template that doesn't fulfill my needs at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. For this list, this specific Neelix-related set of deletions, this template will work. In the future, we can have a longer discussion about amending La or having a deletion-specific template that accepts a parameter (or just make Lan do that). But I think changing a template used on 280k pages is premature, given the number of different circumstances in which La is used. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is meant to be that discussion. Once again, what's wrong with adding a feature to this template, right now? Nobody's given a single example of how adding such a feature would impair anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've hit on a few, but I will sum them up. This is a widely-used template, and the proposed feature would be useful in only a small percentage of uses of that template - not enough, I think, to justify adding a parameter and complicating what is supposed to be a very very simple template. Because the La template is called from other templates in most cases (as with Afd, for example), you'd have to use the deletion template and then go back in and edit the La template to add your parameter - which defeats the whole point of adding the function in the first place. It'd be simpler in those circumstances just to type in the rationale in the box. So not only is it more work, but you've knocked another set of pages out of the percentage for which this would be useful. I'm happy to try it out on a small subset of articles - the Neelix redirects are a prime candidate, and the hard-coded rationale fits well there. But I think amending La is too big a change to a widely used template for not nearly enough gain. This is using a hammer where a scalpel would do. It's a good idea, and I think we can implement it in time. But I'm not ready to support a change of this scope. Not this quickly, not to this template. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is merged it should not merge into "Delete page"; however, we have many variations on the lx and xl template sets, so perhaps all of the 'lx' templates should be able to be used this way? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't we just add a |rationale= parameter to {{la}} and all related templates? That's all I'm attempting to request in this merger nomination. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's all you're asking, why not have an RFC on the Talk page instead of disrupting hundreds of thousands of transclusions? You seem to have identified a unique need and are proposing a small addition (just one extra parameter) to a protected template. This is not a TFD merge discussion, except for the fact that you've made it so. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is not..." Did you notice who created the discussion, and what was originally proposed? Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with this kind of process; my template work consists almost entirely of navbox work, and I'm quite the newcomer otherwise to template work, so stop biting me. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 10 February 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:Blu*3 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) Primefac (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Musical artist template of uncertain value, and even some doubts about its accuracy. None of the three "studio albums" named here, for instance, match the titles of the two studio albums named in the article, none of the albums named in either spot actually have articles to link to, and none of the songs listed in the "singles" section of this template have articles either. At the same time as creating this template, the same editor also submitted a draft version of this template through WP:AFC, which also claimed and linked to two further albums which had actually been recorded by the American country band Sugarland (though at least they were removed from the live version.) Which means the only things this box is actually linking are the band, its members (who are already linking to the band in their body text anyway), some acts they worked with, and some music awards articles. This isn't how a band gets a navbox; they get one only when at least some of the albums and/or singles start having articles to link. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No useful links other than band members. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:11, 17 February 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:Superior (band) 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) Primefac (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The band is barely notable by itself, but the number of other articles notable enough to be on Wikipedia is very small. This template is superfluous. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 00:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as useless. Only one live link. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as we don't need a full navbox to link two articles to each other —PC-XT+ 04:26, 18 February 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_February_9&oldid=1145942400"