Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28

edit

Template:Nosubst2

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nosubst2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created just under a week ago; zero transclusions, unclear purpose (no documentation). It appears to be a template that transcludes a template, the name of which is specified in the first (only) positional parameter. It may have no point either: using e.g. {{nosubst2|fact}} (without further parameters) is exactly the same as using {{fact}} (without parameters) but takes slightly longer to parse. A definite disadvantage is that if parameters are specified, they are not passed through, so {{nosubst2|fact|date=July 2014}} behaves as if it were undated. Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as a signature transclusion. If when you signed it with 4 tildes it should replace with a signature template to stop signing much character that copied from a template. --Allen talk 20:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It was created as a consequence of the umpteenth failure to understand WP:SIG#NT. Allen is also an editor on wikis hosted by Wikia, where the usual rule is that signatures should be templated because it reduces the amount of code in the source to a minimum. TFD surely isn't the place to discuss an editor's communication barriers, but I felt the information was relevant to clearing up why this template was created. moluɐɯ 21:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as against WP:SIG#NT. This creates targets for vandalism. Even if we had a protected template which only transcluded protected signature templates, bots would need to be able to read the transclusions to tell they are signatures, and all the talk pages an editor signs would require updating every time the transcluded template they use is updated. —PC-XT+ 23:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) 23:36, 29 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:!

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. — Keφr 10:18, 28 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BRICS countries

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BRICS countries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BRIC summits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:BRICS countries with Template:BRIC summits.
Redundant. Merge similar to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Current_BRICS_Leaders. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how would some superflous links at the end of huge country article really matter? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more clutter at the end of country articles. So if this is merged, there should be a way to hide everything except the country links, to reduce the clutter. (such as a |countries=yes switch that only displays the country links.) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Legislative districts of Valenzuela City

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legislative districts of Valenzuela City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All links covered in the main Template:Valenzuela City.--RioHondo (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Overlinked

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Followup per the request on my talk page
Note that by sheer vote count, some might close this as "keep", but we are reminded that these are discussions and not votes. In addition, unlike other venues, there is no "vote percentage threshold" in template deletion discussions for when a discussion should be closed as keep/no consensus/delete. Hence, it is up to the closer to weigh the arguments for and against deleting the template. In this case, I felt as though there were strong arguments on both sides, but no consensus. Hence, this was closed as "no consensus". Please feel free to discuss the merits (or lack of merits) of this template elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Overlinked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

27 transclusions. Of dubious value as a cleanup template given the ease of fixing the alleged problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I tend to agree with CC's position. Articles tend to have poor usability when aggressively delinked, as you need to hunt for links on the page if you knew the condition existed, or you'd believe no articles existed for likely key topic, as in long articles, the first occurrence may be nowhere near what you're reading, especially if you used a section-redirect or the TOC to get to where you're reading. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This template has been in continued use for years, because there are always a few editors who exaggerate in adding links to articles. I have found this template useful in finding those articles. The argument by Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) is flawed, because this template doesn't serve to fix the problem but to draw willing editors' attention to it. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When an editor sees there is a redundant link, a "link not relevant to the context", or a combination of (or multiples of) the 2, he can simply delete the few characters that create the link(s) (e.g., the [[ ]] brackets)--instead of typing all the characters for the hatbox code. (That is, the Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) argument is valid.) Moreover, Template:Cleanup suffices and makes Template:Overlinked of extremely low extra value. 30 SW (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The template is needed to draw attention to such articles. The fact remains that articles with heavy overlinking do exist, and these articles need attention drawn to them. Template:Cleanup is too general, so that is a non-argument. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Here's an example my usage: Doti District. There's way too many (and weird) red links/red-linked templates in that article for my liking. It's just unappealing to a reader and needs to be slimmed down. Just because a template is less used than others, doesn't mean it needs to be tossed in the bin. With the template applied, the issue is addressed and time is given to hand pick bad links out, whether it be too many red or blue links. Obviously, no article needs too many blue links (hence this template). They only need what's relevant. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes it may have few transclusions, but this does not mean that it isn't useful. Besides, if it was added to something like Twinkle, it might actually start being transcluded more. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktr101: It is in Twinkle. It's under Specific content issues then links. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this template is not meant to be used transcluded frequently. It is meant to draw attention to over-linked articles, so they may be fixed, and the template removed. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Full disclosure: I created the template. But I didn't create it for the occasional article with three links to the same article. Some people will link 60% of the words in an sentence. Also, more often, creating redlinks, often in lists. Or, in some type of advertising campaign, overlink a particular term many, many times. Sometimes, you don't have time (or desire) in that moment to rectify the problem personally, but as Debresser said, it will draw another willing editor's attention to the problem if he/she desires to correct it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not all useful templates will be use frequently. --I dream of horses (T) @ 06:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One may not have the time to remove all those links. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cite image

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one article use; replaceable by {{cite AV media}}; not mergeable due to differing parameters.  Gadget850 talk 10:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of nominating for deletion a template which is attached to a proposal (hence only one example usage)? It is clearly not replaceable with {{cite AV media}}, which is just a normal citation template for text in articles. It's a bit rude that you didn't read Wikipedia:Image citation or ever attempt to contact me before this nomination. Dominic·t 15:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication in the template documentation that it is attached to a proposal. If this is part of a proposal, then it should be marked as such and should not be used in articles. This has been in template space for six months. The only thing missing from {{cite AV media}} is the LOC ID, and that can be included as a separate template. This would also allow IDs other than LOC (I have worked with these before and understand how they work).
Lastly, this page is Templates for Discussion, and that is what we are doing here. One of these days we will change the TfD template to reflect this.

"[Inez Milholland Boissevain, wearing white cape, seated on white horse at the National American Woman Suffrage Association parade, March 3, 1913, Washington, D.C.]". Photographic print, [19]13 March 3. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-DIG-ppmsc-00031.

"[Inez Milholland Boissevain, wearing white cape, seated on white horse at the National American Woman Suffrage Association parade, March 3, 1913, Washington, D.C.]". (Photographic print). Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. March 3, 1913. LC-DIG-ppmsc-00031 http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/97510669/. {{cite AV media}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I fail to see what harm the page is causing or why I need to spend my time defending it now. You nominated this page for deletion without giving anyone the courtesy of asking what it was for first or looking at the pages where it was used, and now you are insisting that we must discuss the specific design of a template for an idea that doesn't even have consensus yet here. You can claim that this isn't a deletion nomination and that you just want to discuss, even though it seems to me that that was not your original intention, but if you actually have comments on that proposal, please discuss it on the talk page where it is more appropriate and not here. Dominic·t 19:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 28 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Anik Dutta

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anik Dutta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fails WP:NENAN with just two valid blue links The Banner talk 20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator....William 14:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NENAN is not a policy and there is no consensus for the view that there is a minimum number of links necessary for a navigational template. The template has three blue links, not two, and as Dutta is an active director it is likely that there will be more links as time goes on. If the template is extended to include writing credits, which has been done elsewhere, the number of blue links increases to four, not that there's a magic number for survival. "Directed by" templates a common feature on WP:FILM articles and useful to our readers. Mackensen (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANOEP, with support for the expansion mentioned by User:Mackensen. I would think about putting this on Anik Dutta, as well. —PC-XT+ 01:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have said keep for now, since this should be rediscussed if nothing changes —PC-XT+ 00:36, 30 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_28&oldid=1161576903"