Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 6 May 8 >

May 7


Template:§§

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) 04:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

seems to be broken since I had to do this to get the link to show in the references. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have corrected the error. This template will become extremely useful as German/Austrian/Swiss articles are added as it because it enables a smart link to German/Austrian/Swiss laws. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template was created nearly three years ago, never used, and apparently didn't work until today. I'm deeply sceptical that "this will be useful in future" holds water here. We should endeavour only to import from other wikis code which is immediately useful or it will sit here, rot and end up getting deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename clearly lots of things have subsections, there's no reason for this to take this opaque generic name. Perhaps Template:Germanic§§law 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The German Wikipedia uses de:Vorlage:§§ and two other similar templates de:Vorlage:§ and de:Vorlage:Art. a lot. Using them is recommended practice for referencing legal content (de:Wikipedia:Belege/Recht). So having these templates on the English Wikipedia makes translating and referencing German legal articles a lot easier. Maybe updating to the newest German version would help. --S.K. (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no evidence whatsoever that these have ever actually been used in transferring content over here. I am in general broadly sympathetic with cross-wiki transition tenmplates and have worked with Bermicourt to improve several of them in the past, but that doesn't mean we should simply copy across every template on de-WP blindly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your have a point. The reason I cross-wiki'd this template is that I felt it would become important over time as more articles were translated from de.wiki where it is quite extensively used. However most of the stuff I do is not of a legal nature, so that's probably why its usage hasn't grown. The main problem with deletion is that, if someone started bringing lots of articles over with legal references, they would have to recreate the template and re-translate the documentation. That won't be me! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't mean it should be called "§§", since this isn't the German Wikipedia, there are more prominent English topics with subsections. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{Vorlage:§§/alt}}; no opinion about §§ atm. mabdul 13:04, 2 May 2012 (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) 23:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – it strikes me as rather impractical for people to type the name of that template on a regular basis. It Is Me Here t / c 23:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There is no need to rename it; in fact that will cause problems. The template is unlikely to be created from scratch by an English-speaker. Its purpose is to enable references to legal documents and laws in Germany, Austria and Switzerland to be automatically handled when articles are transferred and translated from de.wiki. There are hundreds of these. If we change the name; they won't be recognised unless someone is savvy enough to know the en.wiki equivalent and manually change the name. As English wiki is much more fixated about the need for lots of references I would advise keeping it, ensuring it works properly and is kept up to date. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Germanic laws are not the first kind of subsection to be apparent in English Wikipedia, it should not use an opaque name that would normally mean many other things before ever meaning Germanic laws in English. Why should English Wikipedia follow rigidly what de.wiki does? People are renaming opaquely named English topics templates to more identifiable names, yet we need to keep this one at this name? Look at all the grammatical corrections (like adding spaces, expanding acronyms, etc) that come up as rename requests for templates on en.wiki. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I obviously did not make myself clear. The reason for retaining the name is not to rigidly follow German Wiki, which I would not advocate. It is to enable the automatic and correct display of legal references when code is transferred in from German Wiki sources. We could of course get round this by a template redirect if this is such an issue. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2012 (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:Expand

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 Closing, wasn't sure if dabs are acceptable in template space. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yeah, this again.

I like the idea, but I'm not sure if we can have dabs in template space. Is there a precedent for this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There's a place for a dab in the template space. It helps find expand templates. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (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:AFVs in the United States

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) 03:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFVs in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, can't really see the point of it to be honest. Jenks24 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2012 (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:FK Lyn squad

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) 03:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FK Lyn squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fourth-tier team, almost no notable players. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:32, 8 May 2012 (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:WAP assignment

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 keep separate for now, but feel free to continue to discuss merging the templates on the template talk page or elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WAP assignment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another user nominated this for merge with

D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep since this seems to appear still on many article talk pages, unless there's a way to replace all of those with the educational assignment template. Pine(talk) 21:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please note the comments made at "
talk) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
For convenience, I'll reproduce my comment here: "No objection if the date functionality of {{
talk) 10:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see that Wikipedia talk:ambassadors and Wikipedia: Education noticeboard have been notified of this discussion so I'll post links in both places. Possibly people will be in favor of the merge, and possibly not. Pine(talk) 07:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, unless someone is prepared to very thoroughly work on merging these two, with their many many conditional statements.--Pharos (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2012 (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:UVK

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) 03:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another user proposed a merge with

D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:12, 7 May 2012 (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:Mario franchise

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 Closure. Templates merged per discussion on relevant talk page. Izno (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mario franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another user placed an article merge tag to suggest merging this with

D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:07, 7 May 2012 (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:Maldives Island

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) 03:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maldives Island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Maldives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another user has suggested merging this to

D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:03, 7 May 2012 (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:21

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) 03:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redundant to {{Adele}}. Precedent with deletions of similar templates: Template:Talk That Talk and Template:Mylo Xyloto. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this has nothing to do with the age of majority, age of legal drinking, or the cardgame Blackjack. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to the Adele template and ambiguously named. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Definitely redundant! 22dragon22burn (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2012 (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:Geog medal top ref box

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, clearly a single use template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geog medal top ref box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

suggest moving to userspace. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Looks like the user page where this is used is a draft article; this template is a TOC for that article. Totally nonstandard TOC using globe icons. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:11, 7 May 2012 (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:S-line/BJS left/Hugezhuang

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; deleted by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/BJS left/Hugezhuang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is made up, along with all the other pages created by user Beijingditielover. The first one we found has already been deleted, but there are 5 more. The one that's already been deleted was Hugezhuang Line (Beijing Subway) Azylber (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2012 (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:S-line/BJS right/Hugezhuang

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; deleted by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/BJS right/Hugezhuang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is made up, along with all the other pages created by user Beijingditielover. The first one we found has already been deleted, but there are 5 more. The one that's already been deleted was Hugezhuang Line (Beijing Subway) Azylber (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2012 (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:Paywall

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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Against policy. Where a paywalled source is the best source , we use it. Most of the places this is apparently used are news articles that are not replaceable, and are available non-paywalled at libraries. The red in particular makes this especially inappropriate and hinders readability, DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete replicates the functionality of {{subscription required}} with no additional usefulness. We don't suggest people replace paper sources with free online sources, even if the paper sources are very expensive, so there's no reason to do this for online sources. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I noticed the recent addition of the red text to the template, and perceive the red text as distracting. Also, following the advice in the template of replacing a paywalled source with a free source has the potential to reduce the source quality in articles, particularly if people don't cross-check and compare information in the current source in an article and the potential replacement "free" source. After consideration, here are some options:
  1. Simply change the page's formatting to match that of the Subscription required template, which would be an easy solution. Apply page protection (if necessary) to prevent reverts to the previous versions, (if consensus in this discussion becomes as such). This would be useful because typing "{{Paywall}}" takes much less time for users to do compared to typing "{{Subscription required}}". (Try out comparing the two, the former is faster and easier to type). Retaining the Paywall template corresponds to user-friendliness in editing, due to the ease in which it's typed.
  2. Delete with a redirect to {{Subscription required}}, so that pages currently using the Paywall template are replaced with the Subscription required template, rather than red links.
I am leaning toward option #1, due to the ease of just typing {{Paywall}}, although option #2 would essentially produce the same result when users type "{{Paywall}}". Of course, the option that is the most congruent with a smooth transition in relation to how the Wiki software functions and server load is of importance. Would option #2 increase the load on the Wiki software/servers? If there would be no load increase, or a negligible increase, then option #2 seems to be in order. Currently, from a rough count approximately 125 pages link to the template, which isn't a high number, so perhaps load isn't a highly relevant variable in this case.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 05:21, 7 May 2012 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_7&oldid=1136430451"