Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 1 May 3 >

May 2 edit

Template:MW 1935 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An attribution template, along the lines of {{1911}}, for text from a 1935 UK encyclopedia. Unfortunately, that text is probably not in the public domain in the US yet. In all the articles where this template was used, text has been rewritten to avoid copyright issues (the excerpts were short to begin with) and the template was removed. Therefore, this template no longer has a use. Wikiacc () 22:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made this template. I'm no longer an active user. I don't think anyone else uses this template. Do as you will. --ZayZayEM (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom TheImaCow (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2020 (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:Wikipedia search categories 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Wikipedia search page in article in violation of WP:ELNO 9. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Links to a search page, which readers can access via other means, and violation of ELNO9. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the use in it at all. --TheImaCow (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2020 (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:Commons-species 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) 00:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of {{Wikispecies}} with only significant difference being this template saying "has media" instead of "has information". All uses should be replaced with {{Wikispecies}} and then the template deleted. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace and delete Easier and simpler for current and future editors to use and maintain a single template to make this link. For this reason I advocate replace/delete rather than redirect. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and/or redirect Frietjes (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2020 (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:Wikiversity-r 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. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be linking to wikiversity projects too early in the development of the resource and if you can't call the page a "learning resource" as is done with {{Wikiversity}} it should not be linked. Only one transclusion after I removed links to non-existent projects. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We shouldn't be linking to research papers there just like we don't generally link to research papers on other articles. I worry it is overly promotional and I personally feel there are a number of issues relating to Wikijournal articles including their reliability, the risk of circular referencing and the lack of adequate review and readership by peers meaning I don't feel we should link to in general, however I realise that opinion differs around here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2020 (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:Wikiquote-simple 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikiquote is a sister project which has been closed as a misguided idea. We should not link to this project for numerous reasons as shown in the extensive closure disscussion. Also worth noting that these links violate WP:ELNO 12 and that the template is only used on 18 pages. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2020 (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:Wikinews 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:Wikinews. Primefac (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Wikinewshas with Template:Wikinews.
These three templates serve the same purpose of linking to Wikinews articles but each have some small unique features. {{Wikinewshas}} can customize what follows "Wikinews has", {{Wikinewspar2}} support linking to several news items and {{Wikinews}} has a more robust error handling system. All these features should be merged into {{Wikinews}} to make a single unified template superior to all of them. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace and deleteEasier and simpler for current and future editors to use and maintain a single template to make this link. For this reason I advocate replace/delete rather than redirect, as it is less confusing for editors to have only the one option. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2020 (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:Wikispore 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 2020 May 11. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2020 (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:Bengali Wikisource 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 2020 May 11. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2020 (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:Pictogram weg 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; appears to be broken since only some of the templates were copied over to this WP. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:28, 2 May 2020 (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:WikiProject Raymond E. Feist 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Project was a redirect, that then was deleted, so the redlink-containing project banner template should be deleted also. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2020 (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:Exams 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Exams with Template:Atschool.
Redundant to {{Atschool}} with the exams parameter. robertsky (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as is. There are certain situations I can imagine where a user might not necessarily be enrolled in an educational institution but still taking exams, for example if they are studying for an at-work qualification. CJ Drop me a line! • Contribs 18:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: School isn't necessarily considered a term sufficient at all levels: for instance, in the UK and the Commonwealth (and increasingly, I believe, in the United States), the term "refers primarily to pre-university institutions" — and given the diversity of editors we have here, it would be rather condescending for us to default to a template that is not wholly culturally correct for those editors. That is to say: "school" has various meanings, often referring to pre-university education. It's best to keep "exams" to differentiate between the two. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Exams are often a small portion of school life and to study for them occurs only during a small window of the overall Academic year - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A strong Keep: I am a college student and I like having the School template on my page. It is beyond helpful. 🍋Lemonpasta🍋 [talk] 09:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep because I'm a college student too, and as the other votes say, "school" is usually pre-university where I am. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kohlrabi Pickle, Lemonpasta, and Javert2113: The {{Atschool}} template has a parameter, "type", to switch the text from "school" to "college", "university", and "graduate school". This parameter can always be extended to suit other school type if need be, thus the point on {{Atschool}} being culturally incorrect is moot. However, I recognise the point raised by Cj005257 wherein there are professional qualifications to take while at work. That totally slipped my mind. robertsky (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Robertsky: I take the point. I'm not fully sure how one decides whether or not to keep a template, but I'll express my opinion anyway. I have just tested out the alternative. It has a lot of text (which needs some grammar work) about being away for long periods of time and being unresponsive to messages, with the return date somewhere in the middle. Perhaps this is useful for people whose Wikipedia time is consistently low because of schoolwork, but it feels clunky and inelegant for exams, which is a "block" interruption. The "exams" template is simple and to the point: I'm on a wikibreak to prepare for exams and will be back on X date. I would very much prefer that it be kept. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As mentioned above, some users mean neither "school" nor anything related to school. Also, not a big fan of telling people "Instead of typing {{exams}} when you're in the middle of studying, we've decided that it's better for you to suddenly start getting a red link, go try to find out what happened, and then simply type {{atschool|type=university|exams=yes}} every single time instead. As you can see, this non-optional improvement in simplicity and efficiency improves your faith in Wikipedia's direction and makes you want to come back even more. You're welcome." --Closeapple (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2020 (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).

Abolish Congestion Charge - both templates for deletion 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 -FASTILY 03:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No article for this party and What Links Here appears to show almost no uses of either template. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:39, 2 May 2020 (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).

Cricket standings templates 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 -FASTILY 03:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been merged into the main article. HawkAussie (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2020 (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).

File namespace language templates 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 2020 May 9. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2020 (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/2020_May_2&oldid=956920697"