Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 19 November 21 >

November 20[edit]

Template:FB r MLS team 2[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) 04:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FB r MLS team 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:23, 20 November 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:Lists of footballers by club in 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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of footballers by club in England (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is unused and out of date. I cannot see any merit in retaining it. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agree with nom, pointless. GiantSnowman 13:45, 21 November 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:Rr[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. It looks like there are no objections, the template is very sparsely used, and very similar to the old "source list". It does not appear there are any objections to creating a {{cite bibcode}}, but this isn't it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

basically, this template creates a citation using one of the Rr subtemplates. while this is certainly an interesting idea, it is largely redundant to {{cite doi}}, since almost all of these citations have a doi. also, I thought we discussed this sort of thing before? it looks to me like source list all over again. Frietjes (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the DOI template requires a doi, but this doesn't, right? Though, I don't particularly see a reason why we have all these templates hanging about for PMID and DOI and RRs now as well... with millions of helper subtemplates for many single use references... Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Cite pmid/ & Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Cite doi/ ; if we're keeping the DOI and PMIDs, I don't see why we don't have a generic form for those that don't have PMIDs and DOIs, and that all DOIs and PMID should be migrated to a unified entry, instead have having potentially separate PMID and DOI subtemplates for the same reference. -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • you need some sort of unique identifier, and doi/pmid/isbn/bibcode are basically what we have. let's look the subtemplates used by this template. all but three have a doi. the one's that don't are like Template:Rr/Mace et al. (2012), which has zero information. the convention used by this template would require changing all transclusions of this after it is published. a far better idea would be to have a "to appear" template in the citation, which would allow tracking of articles which are not yet published, and should have a doi in the future. sources with no URL and no title cannot be easily verified. it would be like putting "private communication" in a citation in an article. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 12 November 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) 05:07, 20 November 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:United States at the Olympics[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States at the Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox at top of page give the same information making this template redundant. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template provides navbox content. The malplaced content at the top is not a substitute for information that is where the reader should be looking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So far, the only comment on this TfD after six days is a "keep" vote from the template's creator. Did the nominating editor notify WikiProject Olympics on its talk page? WikiProject Sports, perhaps? If not, this TfD should be relisted and extended until the editors with the most interest and best understanding of the existing system of inter-article links for Olympics-related topics are given a chance to express their opinions.
My quick review of the "at the Olympics" series of articles for Australia, China, East Germany, France, Germany, Russia, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and West Germany (a representative sample of major participants over the last century) reveals that the "United States at the Olympics," and its daughter articles for each Olympiad, are the only series that have such a template. The others seem to rely on the "malplaced content" in the standardized infobox in the upper right-hand corner of each of the articles.
I am, however, mindful of the fact that the applicable guideline, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, not only permits, but encourages multiple linkage systems (categories, infoboxes, navboxes, etc.) within the same family of articles. That having been said, I believe WikiProject Olympics should have a very large say in determining how their highly standardized family of articles are formatted and inter-linked. How about we solicit their opinion on point? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:37, 18 November 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) 05:04, 20 November 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:Serbia at the Olympics[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serbia at the Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox at top of page give the same information making this template redundant. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 04:18, 12 November 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) 05:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a discussion can be initiated concerning all of them. Frietjes (talk) 23:50, 6 December 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:TransLink (SEQ) railway platform[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, the consensus is that it would be better to create a generic template (like Infobox station), which can work with different "style" parameters. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TransLink (SEQ) railway platform (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose not clear . See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_6#Template:Infobox_TransLink_.28SEQ.29_railway_station. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's a fairly new template; started in October and updated this month. I suspect it's meant to eventually replace the platform diagrams that are quite common on Australian articles (see e.g. Central railway station, Brisbane). I think this nomination is premature. Mackensen (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with {{CityRail platform box}}, to create something a bit more generic. the only thing "CityRail" specific about that template is the {{CityRail platform box/line}} subtemplate. it would be fairly easy to add a "type" option, which would select between multiple "line" subtemplates, each providing a different colouring scheme. Frietjes (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Merging would be a good idea - if this template was actually used. We still have to hear from the user that created this template. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • very true. as a primary contributor to {{CityRail platform box}}, you can take my suggestion as an offer to make something that will work for translink pages. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • - and here User:MasterofCoffee/sandbox, the editor who created this, is now trying to recreate "Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) railway station". Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:10, 2 December 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:Infobox UofT College[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) 04:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UofT College (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundat to {{Infobox University}}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:21, 20 November 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_November_20&oldid=1141876128"