Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 17 February 19 >

February 18 edit

Template:SharedIPUser 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 Template:Shared IP. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose redirecting Template:SharedIPUser, Template:Shared IP Meta, Template:Shared IP 1, Template:Shared IP/Proxy, and Template:FirewallWarning to Template:Shared IP.
All of these serve the same purpose but contain slightly different information. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all of the above, per nom. I'd point out that proxy IP notices do often serve a slightly different purpose, but this one won't be missed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2017 (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:Pp-pc2 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since the ability to protect pages under PC2 has been removed this template is useless and unused. Laurdecl talk 08:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the ability was removed, doesn't mean the protection is in itself removed. PC2 may come back in the future at some point.
I very highly doubt it. Also, the template is broken as the functionality has been removed from the Lua module. What is the point in having an unused, broken template? Laurdecl talk 07:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the diff that removes said functionality? Also is there a reason I wasn't notified of this discussion?—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 15:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Cyberpower, do you mean this RfC? Laurdecl talk 01:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No you said the Lua Module no longer supports PP-PC2. Can you point to the diff were its support was removed? The MW software is still PC2 capable, and from what I see the Lua Module also supports it. All that's happened is that the option to protect with PC2 was removed from the interface.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 01:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bad; when I previewed the template on an article I didn't see any padlock, so I assumed it was broken or had been removed. Still, even if it works, there's not much point for it to exist apart from confusing people about what PC "level 2" is, now that's it's been removed from policy pages. Laurdecl talk 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PC2 still redirects, and the policy does make mention of what level 2 used to be.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 02:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the point of keeping this template? Laurdecl talk 02:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historical purposes?—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 03:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... Laurdecl talk 04:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since we keep deprecated templates if they have long histories, or if they preserve history that's useful, or something of the sort, but this isn't any of those cases, and it won't be getting used; if there's an IAR use of PC2, or if the community permits it for one or a few particularly problematic articles, we can use the full-protection template if we really need something. However, if the community ever authorises the general use of PC2, the community decision should be seen as overriding this TFD, and the template should be speedy-undeleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:21, 18 February 2017 (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:Simpsons Sideshow Bob 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be encouraging character-specific navboxes for television episodes. At best, it's WP:FANCRUFT. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, this should be covered in Sideshow Bob#Appearances, not in a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at best it's a good and informative template. Readers going to the Sideshow Bob page, or to one of the pages of an episode he appeared in, would have an interest in other Sideshow Bob episodes. Sideshow Bob is one of those characters who doesn't have a whole lot of appearances, so each is a notable occasion. Please explain, what does the nominator sees wrong with it? Randy Kryn 20:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep useful navigation tool for the Jeff Albertson type. Also per last nomination; no persuasive new argument has been brought forward to justify a second. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So are you advocating {{Simpsons Comic Book Guy}}, {{Simpsons Santa's Little Helper}}, {{Simpsons Ned Flanders}}, {{Simpsons Patty and Selma}}, {{Simpsons Sideshow Mel}}, {{Simpsons Krusty the Clown}} etc, etc, templates? Can't you see why it's a problem? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. All of those characters are more commonly seen than Sideshow Bob, as Randy pointed out; Bob is more of an event, this is more analogous to Template:Treehouse of Horror than {{Simpsons Santa's Little Helper}}. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this template is unnecessary. There's an "Appearances" section on Sideshow Bob's article, so we won't be needing this. --BooCookie (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (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:Rio 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 no consensus. The !votes are split, and the rationale is equal (one camp says there are enough links, one camp says there aren't enough). Primefac (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two films, one video game, one song (the "Real in Rio" song is a redirect). Fails WP:NENAN at the moment. Should this franchise produce more notable content, the template can be recreated then. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep enough content in my mind to justify keeping. Helps interested readers navigate between rio movie-related articles. --Tom (LT) 00:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; too few links (for now). —Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     10:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets the criteria listed in the WP:NAVBOX guideline. WP:NENAN is merely an essay. Mojoworker (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not quite enough links to warrant a navbox, and the fact there is no article on the topic of the navbox tips the balance for me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2017 (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:Westminster Parsons football coach navbox 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. Primefac (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXISTING... only used in two articles (needs 4)... fails to navigate. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (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:CSU–Pueblo ThunderWolves football coach navbox 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. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXISTING... only one article... failing to navigate. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the articles in question are created then this should be restored. Laurdecl talk 23:15, 18 February 2017 (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:PubMed 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 merge to Template:PMID. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with {{PMID}} save for a formatting difference which introduces more often than not an inconsistency with other links to the PMID database as provided by the other PMID templates, magic linking, and citation templates. Compare {{PMID|0123456}} (PMID 123456) with {{PubMeb|0123456}} with PMID 123456.

A simpler option might just be to redirect Template:PubMed to Template:PMID though. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Template:PubMed hides the url when printed out, but the Template:PMID does not. Whenever templates that contain links are printed, it is normal to suppress the full urls, because that can negatively impact the display of elements where space is at a premium. I would have thought that merging both into a template similar to Template:PubMed, but using the {{#expr:{{{1|0}}}}} parameter evaluation of Template:PMID would yield the best of both worlds. Obviously one would then redirect to the other, but I have no preference over which way round that should be. Incidentally, aren't both now redundant to the recently introduced linking syntax [[PMID:0123456]] → PMID:0123456?
Magic links are going the way of the dodo as will soon be all converted to templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[[PMID:0123456]] is not a magic link. It replaces the magic link PMID 0123456 (which is indeed now deprecated), and just as any other wiki-link, it allows piped links like [[PMID:0123456|Smith et al, 2015]] → Smith et al, 2015. Check it out if you haven't seen it before. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure consensus was to use templates for this, so that will likely be removed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was indeed to remove magic links: mw:Requests for comment/Future of magic links, December 2016. However, you're confusing magic links (like PMID 1234 – note the space) with what was introduced by the devs to replace them as of MediaWiki version 1.28. The new interwiki links, like pmid:18280103 and rfc:793, have been introduced into the MediaWiki software across all wikis, not just here. The change is documented at mw:Help:Magic links and, being core software, they are intended to become the standard for creating links to PubMed and RFCs. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus for magic links to be removed from MediaWiki core (BookSources and the ISBN parser function will likely be the next to go; see Manual:ISBN), however, that is not the same thing as consensus for removal from WikiMedia projects (e.g., English Wikipedia). Though interwikis have been provided as one possible replacement (for RFC and PMID anyway), magic links could be brought back via a MediaWiki extension or replaced with templates, or something else (on a project basis). I have not taken a recent poll but I believe English Wikipedia is currently leaning towards replacing magic links with with templates (i.e., {{ISBN}}, {{IETF RFC}} and {{PMID}}). I am sure others will let me know if I am incorrect (it seems to be a heated topic). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. I believe {{PMID}} is the preferred name (though I would not argue either way too much). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge uses to {{PMID}} and redirect. This tempalte is redundant, {{PMID}} is used more, and {{PMID}} has slightly better form. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:00, 3 March 2017 (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:Field marshal (India) 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 on 2017 March 5 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 5 March 2017 (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:Parkways in Westchester County, New York 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; deleted by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 18:12, 18 February 2017 (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:South Carolina Gamecocks women's basketball coach navbox 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 on 2017 March 5 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 5 March 2017 (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:Panathinaikos BC Depth Chart 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. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and if needed, can be put directly in the article. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2017 (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:Kremlin.ru 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. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 00:48, 18 February 2017 (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:Indefblockedipbecause 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 Template:Indefblockedip. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Indefblockedipbecause with Template:Indefblockedip.
Redundant. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2017 (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:Wikilivres 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 convert to inline. The consensus is to keep the template, but convert it to an inline template to avoid possible confusion with Wikimedia sister projects (which often use boxes). Primefac (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template that mimics the templates for sister projects (like Wikisource), but which actually goes to a site not affiliated with Wikimedia, for material which is not allowed on Commons and Wikisource for (US) copyright reasons. Both the dubious copyright status (should we actively link to sites with the intention to avoid the restrictions of Commons and Wikisource), and the misleading way the link is presented (I at least was fooled into thinking that we no had a parallel project to Wikisource for some unclear reason) seem problematic to me.

Note how e.g. at Albert Einstein, we have in the "external links" section on the left text-format templated links to things like Project Gutenberg or the Internet Archive, and on the right a box for all Wikisister projects. And then a box that mimics this for this lone unrelated project.

This one should be deleted or (at the very least, and if the copyright status isn't a problem) be converted to a standard text template like Template:Gutenberg author. Fram (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to convert it to a different format using my alternate IP, but the creator reverted me. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, [1]. I see no reason why this template should have the format normally reserved for sister projects (or why not all other external links then can be converted to such boxes as well, no reason to single out Wikilivres), but perhaps there is a better reason for it than "I prefer this styling". Fram (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fram: Different places have different copyright laws. There's nothing inherently suspicious about linking to Wikilivres anymore than there is about linking to different editions of Project Gutenberg. Are you suggesting that we only link to resources that are in the public domain or are free media in the United States in particular? If the options are to change or delete it, then change to inline to keep from deletion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fram: Also, strictly speaking, templates like {{Library resources box}} and {{External media}} certainly look and function a lot like this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then these may need to be converted as well (although "external media" is more used inline in articles, it seems? And to me, it doesn't look like it mimics the sister project boxes; and the library resources one may need work as well, but is a link to WMFlabs, which is a sister project (or at least a true relative, not an unrelated one like Wikilivres)). Fram (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to inline: Non-sister project ELs should be kept in the inline format. We don't want attraction seeking templates to distract the format. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should weigh-in here, since the call for this template's deletion was probably prompted by my recently adding it to several pages. i fully support the idea of changing the template to an inline one. Obviously, I'd like to continue linking pages to Wikilivres. I don't. however, want to mislead people who follow the link into thinking that they are going to a Wikipedia sister site. I'd also like them to be aware that Wikilivres hosts material that may not be in the public domain in their countries. I think the the template should look like this:
I am an admin on a non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki about literature. Whenever I add an external link to Wikilivres there, I add a note which says something like, "The novel is in the public domain in Canada but is still under copyright in the United Kingdom and the United States." Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be limited to use in the External links section of articles. If it's being used as a citation (for whatever reason), one of the many citation templates should be used instead. Allowing it to be used in the main body of the article smacks of promotion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:28, 2 March 2017 (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/2017_February_18&oldid=1086088883"