Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

November 27[edit]

Template:Category see also[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn (nac) Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category see also (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:SELF, we should not assume that Wikipedia articles are only intended for reading on Wikipedia. Categories are a specific feature of MediaWiki software and other contexts for reading articles (such as offline readers, DVD editions, print editions, content forks and mirrors on other websites, etc.) may not support them. Except for rare exceptions, it is generally a bad idea to link to other namespaces from within an article. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've only ever used {{catseealso}} for categories (thousands of them, in fact) and I don't know of any uses in the main namespace. If you think it shouldn't be in (Main), then just change the documentation. We can also just exclude this in print, like many templates are. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: I didn't realize the template was intended for use in the Category namespace. I'll change the documentation and withdraw the deletion nomination. Kaldari (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Consider this nomination withdrawn. Kaldari (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why would you delete a category-space template used in category-space? Just remove it from articles -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 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:Cleanup-spam[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 relisted on 2014 December 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-spam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Advert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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:Content search link[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 redirect, now that this feature has been added to {{search link}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Content search link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. Only used in three pages (no articles). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 11 November 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) 19:23, 27 November 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:Search wikipedia[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 keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Search wikipedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant. Used on only 7 pages, non in article space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think this should ever be used in ArticleSpace, so it not being used in articlespace is what it should be. But this embeds a searchbox into a page, so I also don't see why this shouldn't be available. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, but add namespace restriction to keep it out of articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 12 November 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) 19:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after adding namespace restriction —PC-XT+ 05:18, 1 December 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:Link section[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. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to simple wiki markup. Only 17 transclusions. Orphaned (so far as I can see) Replace by substitution before deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Would require more complicated code for an editor (anchors). And, of course, 90% of our templates are redundant to simple wiki markup. There is no deletion argument in that. -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have section links in many, many thousands of articles; yet only 17 using the nominated template. The "complication for editors", is caused by this template's esoteric method, not the standard method. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Here is a like-for-like sample conversion. However, a better substitution for the same original is this one, which results in less-clunky prose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Potw orphaned before closure without urgency. Read Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion (section Discussion) -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak rename to something like {{Link to page and section}} to avoid confusion. The redirect could be kept. It could also be made subst-only. —PC-XT+ 08:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, merge into {{sectionlink}}, below —PC-XT+ 08:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why, when its clear virtually no-one uses this template; and obvious that there is no need for it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I probably should make my !vote weak. I don't think there is much use for it, and most likely wouldn't use it, myself. If nobody else !votes in opposition to deletion, it can probably go. —PC-XT+ 22:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now and revert any premature orphaning. Frietjes (talk) 21:56, 24 November 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) 19:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unused now (though probably only because of this nomination), but regardless of that I like the {{section link}} style better, using § instead of ()'s and the word "section", which is less concise. We should only have one style for this link type for consistency; the one template can handle that whatever we decide now or in the future it should be. -- Beland (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. "Weak" because I have a natural hesitation in deleting other people's unused or unusable work. "Delete" because I do believe that the nominee should not be used at all. For one thing, it adds one link to the article and one link to the section, which is link bombardment. For another, it is wordy in comparison to the academically approved "§ Section" and "Article § Section" which {{Section link}} implements beautifully, curtsey of Mr. Stradivarius, SMcCandlish, Czarkoff and FleetCommand (in reverse chronological order). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sectionlink with linksection --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Note to Codeiname Lisa: don't hat my vote unless I agree![reply]
  • @Mrjulesd: Hi. Please restrict your discussion to the fate of this template, not the fate of others. If you want another template merged, please contribute to its own entry. Thanks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mrjulesd: If that intended to be joke, that was a nice one. But... when you come here, you say what you intend to happen to this template. In this case, you want nothing to happen to this template. (It is the other template whose content gets replaced with #REDIRECT [[xxxxx]]{{R from merge}}.) Here is the catch: I am thinking you don't want the other template merged here AND this template deleted! You probably want this template kept and have a very strong reason for keeping it. Please add a "Keep" verdict and tell us about your strong reason. (Of course, there is a case when you can say "keep and merge from other template" because the extension of functionality justifies keeping. Not in this case. These two are not homogenous.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Codename Lisa: (1) Please answer my question: why is a merge vote disallowed when it is explicitly allowed in the relevant guidelines? (2) DON'T HAT MY VOTE I'm entitled to it. (3) I didn't say which template would be deleted and redirected. It should be a consensus opinion. (4) my reasons for a merge is that it would reduce the confusion between the two templates. While not identical they are very similar in function. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Codename Lisa: Please don't hat his verdict. I agree that it is frivolous (obvious a merger is impossible) but please don't. Also, I know that you don't do anything unless you are convinced that it is right. So, if anybody other than an admin has hatted your comments in the past, no matter how eminent or alpha he/she was, know that he/she was not allowed to. Fleet Command (talk) 18:47, 26 December 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:Sectionlink[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. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to simple Wiki markup. Only 135 transclusions. Confusingly similar name to {{Section link}} (which has 20,782 transclusions). Replace by substitution before deletion, or redirection to the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. If they are the same, why is that "confusing(ly)"? If they are not the same, why then redirect? -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When the nom says, "Redundant to simple Wiki markup", that is no reason for deletion; that is true for most of our templates. If the nom says themselves "redirect to a 20k transc'ded template", that's a very strong indicator for a keep. All in all, the proposal goes multiple ways and is not thought through. It is not for others having(!) to research what the proposal should read. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Here is a sample like-for-like conversion, showing the template's redundancy to the simple wiki markup which suffices in very many thousands of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak rename to {{Link to Section}} or something less confusing than the current name. I think one template redundant to each wiki/html markup would be ok, since it would standardize documentation organization. The documentation could give both the markup and template syntax. —PC-XT+ 08:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC) 10:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or, merge {{Link section}}, above, into this as a display option, and possibly make subst-only —PC-XT+ 08:38, 22 November 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) 19:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any existing transclusions can just be bot-modified to use {{section link}} with nopage=y, which seems a lot less confusing. Having a smaller number of templates will I think make them easier to use. -- Beland (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. "Weak" because I have a natural hesitation in deleting other people's used or unusable work. "Delete" because I don't think this template should be used because it encourages bad use. Good usage always needs the user to put additional stuff, like this:
  • "See § {{sectionlink|Title}}" (academically approved format)
  • "See {{sectionlink|Title}} section" (less academic)
  • "See {{sectionlink|Title}}" (not recommended)
Consider using the {{Section link}} (similarity alert!) template instead:
  • "See {{section link||Title|np=y}}"
I can work with the authors for a more elegant format like {{section link|Title}} that generates the same output. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see the point in keeping it, with linksection being available. Changed to merge sectionlink with linksection --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to {{section link}}. Fleet Command (talk) 18:32, 26 December 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:Article section[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) 20:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless; redundant to wiki markup. Unused (after I Subst: the only instance) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 19 November 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) 19:03, 27 November 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:Ministries of Brazil[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) 17:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ministries of Brazil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cabinet of Brazil contains the full cabinet, "Ministries of Brazil" is just a redundant subset. Prburley (talk) 13:51, 27 November 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:Canadian Boar Semen[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 deleted by Diannaa.

Template:Canadian Boar Semen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wrong namespace. The text is also at User:Killick1/sandbox, so it should be fine to delete this page and only keep the user sandbox. Stefan2 (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat deleted the same article yesterday (Canadian Boar Semen) as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. It's an advert disguised as an article, as well as being misplaced in template space. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Diannaa: I see that you deleted the template under WP:CSD#G11. Should the user sandbox also be deleted under that criterion? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I think there's a little more leeway for content in sandboxes. You could tag it and another admin will review it for deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:07, 27 November 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.

Reboot every 20 secunds[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 G2-deleted. Cenarium (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reboot every 20 secunds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary/vandalism Fuddle (talk) 19:09, 27 November 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_27&oldid=641875489"