Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 6

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. Per SMcCandlish's suggestion, I am creating a {{via}} template which will allow for different sources to be included inline with the actual reference. Once it reaches working status the GBLinks template scna be removed and Via added to the relevant links. Primefac (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:GBLinks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete or re-code and re-scope: This template adds the following note the top of a "References", "Sources", "Footnotes", or "Further reading" section:

It is not possible to guarantee that all books cited in any section full of reference/citations will consist exclusively of public-domain (or open-licensed) works freely available in full text as described by this template. Any of billions of people in the world can add any new source at any time. The vast majority of available sources, even for topics pre-dating the copyright cutoff year, are not free, full-text sources in such archives. Generally only

If a template like this is needed, it needs to be made more concise, site-specific ({{GB link}}, {{IA link}}, etc., or perhaps {{Via|GB}}, etc. ), and used inline in singular, specific citations, e.g.: <ref>{{cite book ...}} {{GB link}}</ref>. An output of "(Full text via Google Books.)" would be entirely sufficient.

I actually agree something like that would be useful (Google Books, for one, requests such attribution in return for the amount of resources it has thrown into its digitization project). It should be meta-templated so that it can be used for other forms of "via" attribution of this sort – many of the paywall keys we're given via

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with an inline template per nom. I would suggest deprecating it to make the change, but it's only used on 20 pages right now, which should be a small enough number to fix manually. I don't think it really matters whether it's done via editing the template to work differently and then moving it, or creating a new template and deleting the old one; this is going to go to the holding cell if people agree with the nom, and whoever ends up doing the work can figure out the best way to fix it. --ais523 21:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• delete or rewrite as an inline template as suggested. given the very small number of transclusions, deleting seems to be the better option. but, I would support rewriting it to be less verbose, and inline-attached to the citation in question. Frietjes (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2015 (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

).

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

).

• Template:AnarionHeirs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This no longer serves the purpose of

• delete, now that the links have been merged with Template:Middle-earth, this is redundant. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2015 (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

).

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

).

• Template:IsildurHeirs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This no longer serves the purpose of

• delete, now that the links have been merged with Template:Middle-earth, this is redundant. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2015 (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

).

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

).

• Template:Indian launch systems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do we need this when

• redirect, this is redundant. Frietjes (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ambiguous naming, "launch system" isn't specific to rocketry -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, this is redundant and redirect is not required because both the templates are on same pages.
  talk) 11:38, 8 November 2015 (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

).