Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 6

< June 5	June 7 >

June 6[edit]

Template:Histref[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. Uncontested merge proposal with nothing to merge and no relevant history. Note, originally closed as merge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:WikiProject Timeline Tracer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Histref and Template:Histrefverif with Template:WikiProject Timeline Tracer.
Unnecessary talk page clutter belonging to a defunct WikiProject. Templates are generally used on the same pages as the WikiProject banner (e.g. at Talk:Hypnosis or Talk:Airbus) so I suggest merging there; I've sandboxed the necessary changes at Template:WikiProject Timeline Tracer/sandbox. Or we could just delete, given the status of the WikiProject and that uses of these templates are now about 8 years old. Related project templates {{Histrefeval}} and {{Histrefm}} have already been deleted in past TfDs. PC78 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IoEentry[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 (after replacement, obviously). Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to the more commonly used {{Images of England}}. PC78 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously keep until PC78 has converted all the usages to use the other template. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When there is concensus to delete a template it usually goes into the holding cell and won't actually be deleted until all uses are either removed or replaced – if you're concerned about any loss of information then don't be. PC78 (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least put into the holding cell until ready. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:13, 7 June 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bucharest sectors[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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bucharest sectors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

subset of Template:Geography_of_Bucharest. All links are already there. Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CFORK of Template:Geography of Bucharest 96.52.0.249 (talk) 04:06, 15 June 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Listed building England[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. Temporary usage for data import followed by replacement seems reasonable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Listed building England (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little used template of unclear purpose. We already have {{National Heritage List for England entry}} to produce citations and external links to the Historic England listed building database, and it's not obvious why another template should be necessary. I've already replaced about a dozen or so uses, the remainder look easily replaceable too. PC78 (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose was to maintain cut and paste compatibility with Commons. Look at it this way, you are doing a little promotional work giving a talk to a local history group- and encouraging them to edit and donate some of their old photos. It is an uphill task so you want it to be as simple as possible: asking them to geotag their photos and the article- we need to use {{Coord|52.49258|N|1.88818|W|display=inline}} (en) and {{location dec|52.49258|-2.11182}} (commons) and now we want them to put on the lbe number {{National Heritage List for England entry|}} (en) or {{Listed building England}}(commons).

Here is a nice task for a retired solicitor or librarian- Write a new article.There is a church in Hereford All Saints Church, Hereford that has a Category on Commons. commons:Category:All Saints Church, Hereford. That page displays a commons tag {{Listed building England| 1025105}}. Use the information you find to write a short stub. You can see the value of having the same syntax. We need new editors- and must stop frightening them off.

I think there is another principle at stake here. Data-entry should be made as simple as possible for the editor- templates are there to help. They need to be a mnnemonic as possible and shorter is better. We have bots that can clean up the code to make consistent- like the one that rewrites {{t|commonscat}} for me. The transformation here is simple so will be easy to code. Also there is an equal opportunities issue as overlong template discriminate against arthritic hands and the thus the elderly.

It could be argued that we need to Historic England. "Details from listed building database ({{{num}}})". National Heritage List for England. should be deprecated as it is not consistent with commons, and it is unnecessarily long.

Thanks for showing an interest but I believe any change would be harmful.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, but I'm afraid I don't really get it. What does Commons have to do with anything? Why do we need "cut and paste compatibility"? Why should the presence of a photo or category there be seen as the starting point for an article here? The template you refer to on Commons is for providing external links in image descriptions, it's not designed to be cut and paste into Wikipedia articles and I'm not sure we should encourage people to blindly do so – besides, this template behaves quite differently to the one on Commons, isn't it more likely to confuse new editors when the same code does something different here? And with all the nuts and bolts you've added on to it, I don't see how this template makes things "as simple as possible", particuarly for a novice. Sorry, but it looks overly complex and redundant to me. PC78 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should retired librarians, etc. be encouraged to upload their old photos here instead of on Commons? Presumably they're all PD-old, or am I missing something important? — This, that and the other (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons. We have a photographer donating to the Geograph project- Chris Allen, who writes highly detailed little essays on many images. He is not one of us, but his essays are very wikipedian- we of course have bulk uploaded the geograph images. These essays make excellent stubs, when we have wikified them and checked the references he often gives. It is material like this that we can c&p directly- hence my aim for cross wiki-compatibility.

New editor training. We are spectacularly ineffective here! My ramble was to point out that the participants are often retired professionals- chemists, doctors, librarians and local government officers. They have knowledge and skills to offer, but find the step of editing WP daunting. In a limited training session we need to keep it simple. Cross-wiki compatibility helps.

@PC78:. After going down my watchlist, I see you are attempting to introduce a little sanity into this area.- and came across this template whose use is not obvious. I see where you are coming from- I am wrestling with two different problems, the crosswiki issue- and the unrelated Images of England/National Heritage Database index numbers issue. It was caused by their internal restructuring. I have emailed conversation with their IT officers- which was positive but pointed out that resources are not available to address it- so I let it drop. I think that, though little used this template is important for data entry- it is benign- but a cron bot should subsequently rename it- thus keeping the database clean. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 07:48, 10 June 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Urbanlegend[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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Found this when cleaning the basement of WikiProject Paranormal. It was created nine years ago when our standards for article templates were obviously different. It's not in use anymore and it probably should not be. It was intended as an articlespace template, but there's probably no use for it as a talkspace template either. (It should be a given that articles about urban legends are held to the same standards as other articles.) (And the caution about "government" just sounds weird and irrelevant to most urban legends.) (I posted about this on WikiProject Paranormal, no one reacted.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There is some merit to the template since it does broadcast that sources used for the material it covers may be somewhat subpar due to the fringe nature of the subject matter, but I do concede that at this point what with the changing policies and guidelines that allow for material to be here it is more than likely an obsolete relic of a bygone era. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not in use on any pages, articles can be manually added to Category:Urban legends, and articles still have to meet WP:RS and WP:V and WP:N, whereas this template implies that they don't if they are about urban legends. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:51, 8 June 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sub-disciplines of computing[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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sub-disciplines of computing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template in Vietnamese The Banner talk 11:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to {{Computer science}}96.52.0.249 (talk) 02:44, 15 June 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-test3[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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-test3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I believe that this warning template is redundant, it is responding to good faith "test" edits with the contradictory assumption that such edits constitute bad faith vandalism. Resultantly, it becomes not a "test" warning but a vandalism one virtually syonymous with Template:Uw-vandalism3. If an editor is editing disruptively so many times to warrant a "stage 3" warning, the chances are the "test" one won't even be used anyway. If the edits are repeatedly "good faith tests" then the chances are we won't be using a stern warning like this, nor is it likely that a user will "test" to the point it becomes disruptive if their attitude is constructive and they are willing to cooperate. Seen as the "level 4 test" warning re-directs to the stage 4 vandalism one anyway, I don't see how this template has any use. Therefore, I propose either a deletion or a merger with Template:Uw-vandalism3 TF92 (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified Wikipedia talk:Twinkle, as instructed by the template page, and Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. I am also keeping track of "What links here" for this discussion page, and removing the TFD notice from user talk pages where the warning has been subst'ed - three so far. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: {{uw-test1}} and {{uw-test2}} just talk about test edits, {{uw-test4}} rightly warns that a block for vandalism is likely. The wording of uw-test3 joins these up neatly - a sterner warning about test edits, explaining that we consider repeated test edits to be a form of vandalism. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since without this warning, users getting escalating templates are accused of "continuing to vandalize" ({{Uw-vandalism3}}) without ever having been told that "test edits are considered vandalism": Noyster (talk), 10:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm afraid this is a "me too", since I agree completely with the previous two opinions. —SMALL JIM 19:02, 9 June 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:SZRT line links[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) 21:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SZRT line links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:32, 6 June 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). No further edits should be made to this section.