Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 19

< March 18	March 20 >

March 19 edit

Template:Moose Jaw Warriors Roster 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. ~ Rob^Talk 05:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moose Jaw Warriors Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These three players played for the Brandon Wheat Kings, not the Moose Jaw Warriors (see here for the roster). There is another template by this name and the same user, but named Template:Moose Jaw Warriors roster. I'm not sure if this template should be redirected, but it shouldn't be merged because these players did not play for Moose Jaw. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy as test page and as nonsense, then. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy seconded and tagged —PC-XT+ 18:44, 21 March 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:Bangladesh Premier League results summary 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 as unopposed and unused. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob^Talk 05:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bangladesh Premier League results summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and doesn't work Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:30, 19 March 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:Rotten Tomatoes score 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 speedy delete as per WP:G6 (uncontroversial maintenance). ~ Rob^Talk 14:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rotten Tomatoes score (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The bot that supports this template no longer works due to a change in Rotten Tomatoes' API. There's also been clear community consensus for deprecating and deleting such templates that store article text in templates, such as {{Cite doi}}. All the subpages have already been subject to a TfD, which closed as delete. This is the last template to delete to finish the cleanup. If anyone used this template at this point, they'd just receive an error. ~ Rob^Talk 15:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what there is to discuss here; as its subpages have all been deleted. This might as well be a speedy at this point. I have this template on my watchlist; I did not have any of its subtemplates on my watchlist, so the deletion discussion for those was a de facto deletion discussion for this (which I missed). Seems like it's already a done deal. wbm1058 (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy per Wbm as uncontroversial cleanup of detritus relating to deleted pages. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm unable to close this as the nominator, but I'll tag with WP:G6 at your suggestion and link here for evidence that it truly is non-controversial. Of course, if someone comes along and wants to close, feel free. ~ Rob^Talk 05:05, 27 March 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:Kinston Indians roster 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 redirect to {{Carolina Mudcats roster}}. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kinston Indians roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This minor league baseball team moved and became the Carolina Mudcats. Therefore, a roster template of an old team isnt needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{Carolina Mudcats roster}}. ~ Rob^Talk 04:11, 19 March 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:Kochi Tuskers Kerala Roster 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 as unopposed and unused. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob^Talk 05:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kochi Tuskers Kerala Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This cricket team dissolved in 2011, therefore a roster template isnt needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:51, 19 March 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:RubberBible53rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RubberBible53rd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Specialized version of template:cite book used on three pages in mainspace and on two style guides. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and update documentation to require that it be subst'd, and update the intros at the relevant categories to warn that these are not "unused" and every time people try to TfD them they are kept. [I've added the latter two duties to my own We have quite a number of single-source templates and a whole category structure for them. It's getting tiresome having to re-explain this over and over and over; the idea of deleting these is WP:PERENNIAL; I may add it there. Just leave them alone. They are {{em}massive}} time-savers for those who use them, an often make the different between whether a citation will be added or not. They look "unused" because they supposed to be substituted, to generate the actual citation with all the data they pre-fill. We probably need a speedy keep criterion for things like this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SMcCandlish: Since you presumably know a lot more about this area than I do, could you give us an idea of how many articles this is useful on? I'm generally against hard-coding references into templates without good cause, but if this is useful to hundreds of articles, that's a different story. ~ Rob^Talk 02:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BU Rob13: Hard to say, but surely more than that. We have no way of keeping track of how many times a template is substituted, which editor is doing it with which templates how many times, hoe many times it's happened at a certain article, etc. Given the depth and breadth of that template category branch, across a wide range of topics, and the number of templates in them suggests they've already been used many hundreds of times if not thousands, though some might not have been used much. I've personally used some of them more times than I can remember, over a long period of time. The ones for periodical sources can be used quote a lot (though save less typing since they need the title as input). There have been many attempts to TfD these, one by one, in chunks, or en masse, and the answer is consistently keep. The last time one was deleted and I noticed (because it was one that I use), I got it restored. We routinely keep subst'd utility templates for which there's a clear rationale. Not having to type out the same redundant cite details again and again and again until you give up in disgust is a very solid rationale for keeping templates that let you do things like {{SourceName|page=39}}. Honestly, it's hard for me to think of a more valid until template that helps people cite sources easily and encourages them to do more of it. It's probably the #1 most important rationale there could be here. The "hard-coding references" objection is about hiding reference details in transcluded templates; if these are used properly, they are not. Part of the cleanup already on my to-do list is to go through them and ensure that they can be substituted cleanly; I was just posting about this at Help talk:Substitution earlier today to make sure I get the code for this correct (the documentation there is very opaque). Another part of it is to make sure their docs all say to subst them; I'm sure many more have been created since I last looked at them, some by noobs. I've also been sanboxng bits of a meta template for this, to reduce the need for redundant code. I suck at Lua, but in theory we could have a single template that dis all of them from a big list of source names and details. If the sandboxing goes well, I might have a wiki-code version of something like that for English language grammar guides within a month or two. I need to bibliographically database all the ones I have on hand with Bibtex or something first and then export and build a #switch list and so on. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above. Thanks for explaining, SMcCandlish. ~ Rob^Talk 02:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No prob. I was just hoping to not have to put this on the to-do list so soon, given how long mine is already! LOL. PS: Sorry if I was testy in the first reply. Wasn't anything personal, it was an "argh, this is matter again..." thing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still not a huge fan of keeping this sort of stuff in the template space, but it's undoubtedly useful and there's not really a better place to put it, so meh. Eventually, this sort of thing should go to wikidata. ~ Rob^Talk 04:24, 20 March 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:Cube film series 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 withdrawn by nominator. ~ Rob^Talk 15:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cube film series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three films, and interlinking is already provided in the articles themselves, including by linking to a common article Cube (film series) and a common category Category:Cube (film series), so this is serious overkill. Debresser (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are four articles; so WP:CLN, just because a category exists doesn't mean a navbox can't exist. There seems to be two or three films in various states of production, Cubed and Cube3D , and Cub3d (or that's a title of one of the other two) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob^Talk 01:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are more films in production, including remakes, perhaps it is best to keep the template. Withdrawn for the moment. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep since there are four. "In production" is WP:CRYSTAL; many films that enter production never complete it. PS: The confusion above about the name of the 1 to 3 forthcoming films is a very good illustration of why we have MOS:TM, and just redirect all attested stylizations to the unstylized article title, instead of trying to ape the styling on a particular poster, DVD cover, etc., since these things can vary from piece to piece. PS: I would be good money they're all three the same in-production film. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:47, 19 March 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).