Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

June 16[edit]


Template:Geographic reference[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 Speedy keep. Wrong venue; deletion would violate multiple project standards by removing sources from substantial amounts of text in hundreds of thousands of articles. Please file a WP:RFC or begin a discussion in some comparable venue. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Geographic reference (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

I'm aware that this is a major, major template and while this was discussed years ago, I think it's worth another look. The template is cryptic as used to put it mildly and links to nine different US references and one randomly in India. I don't see what's stopping us from including data from the CIA Worldfact book or every resources with just additional numbers added on, in theory every resource could be put into a single template. It's completely impossible for a new (or even a moderately veteran) user to figure out. Also, zero parameters exist and each reference goes to the main or generic search page and not to any subpages. I would suggest that all the references be substituted and the whole template be deleted or at the very least, these references be split off into separate templates. A single problem in a single subpart would make an epic disaster, just as I imagine this TfD notice will as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible for me to examine the template as it originally appeared? I'm having a hard time participating in this debate due to the TfD notice. Or did the template just automate citations depending on its parameters? Kurtis (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
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:Living fossil fishes[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 Speedy delete. Per author request. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Living fossil fishes (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

As creator of the template, I have discovered other more useful options, thanks to editors far more experienced than I. AtsmeConsult 03:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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 South Park commentary[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) 23:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cite South Park commentary (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This is only used in about ten articles (in the entire South Park universe of articles) but all it accomplishes is creating a much more complicated way for users to cite to this specific source. It doesn't include a time parameter that's at cite av media and rather than having this template I suggest substituting and deleting. If someone wants to userify, I wouldn't object but I don't find copying and pasting the language from inside a reference tag that difficult. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. (Full disclosure: I am the creator of this template.) I honestly feel like this template is helpful in allowing South Park articles to cite episode/movie commentaries (which, for a majority of episodes, are the sole source of specific first-hand production information from the creators) in a unified, correct manner. If you look at the workings of the template, you can see that I made sure that a citation via this method will always produce the correct title of the release, along with a correct year, correct media category (CD/DVD/Blu-ray Disc), the publisher, and the people involved. The fact that it is only employed in about ten articles at the moment does not mean that I, or others, will not want to use this template in articles. Please note that I'm not sure what "userify" means. --Mondotta (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
But do you need the references kept in a template? Wouldn't it be better to substitute them so that the episode title/commentary/etc are just plain English in the wiki? But userify I mean, put it in userspace (as a subpage) that people can use or in Category:Wikipedia substituted templates which I admit is something that I don't likely have a consensus for. The vast majority of the articles don't use this template and I'm not certain it would be better (or easier let's say) for users to have to parse this out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete (subst so that articles directly call {{Cite AV media}}). Special-purpose citation templates need to have make a strong case in order to overcome the extra complexity that comes from creating something outside the normal templates (which are already very complex and numerous). This case is just too limited, too few pages. We've got to always think about reducing complexity for the novice editors. I will say though that its a clean design. --Netoholic @ 03:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • replace with {{cite AV media}} Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
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.