Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 11

< November 10	November 12 >

November 11

Template:Panya Nirunkul

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) 03:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panya Nirunkul (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Likely inappropriate use of navbox template format. We shouldn't bog down the end of film articles with the unrelated filmography of all cast/crew who worked on the film. Paul_012 (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no parent article, and consensus at WT:FILM is navigate by director, not by actor. Frietjes (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2013 (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:Krit Sripoomseth

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) 03:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Krit Sripoomseth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Likely inappropriate use of navbox template format. We shouldn't bog down the end of film articles with the unrelated filmography of all cast/crew who worked on the film. Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, after merging content with the parent article. consensus at WT:FILM is navigate by director, not by actor. Frietjes (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2013 (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:Boriboon Chanrueng

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) 03:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boriboon Chanrueng (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Likely inappropriate use of navbox template format. We shouldn't bog down the end of film articles with the unrelated filmography of all cast/crew who worked on the film. Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, after merging content with the parent article. consensus at WT:FILM is navigate by director, not by actor. Frietjes (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2013 (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:Kapon Tongplub

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. Deleted under T3; the article has been userfied and there's no conceivable use for this template anywhere else. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kapon Tongplub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template created for the work of an actor who does not appear to be notable. That page is flagged currently for CSD A7. Fiddle Faddle 13:15, 11 November 2013 (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:Online source

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Online source (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Online source with Template:Press.
I recently ran across a talk page that had uses both of these templates: Talk:Sinbad (comedian). The two templates seems as though they are capable of citing the exact same information. Also, the templates appear completely redundant. These two templates should be merged so that only one template needs to be used to present this information on a talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I also noticed that these two templates put the articles in two different categories. If this merger occurs, I recommend that either the categories be merged as well, or for there to be a function on the "new" template that could be set up to designate which on of the two categories the article gets placed. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, but the template would have to include both categories unless there is a consensus at CfD to merge them as well. Technical 13 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical 13, I agree with that, provided the categories doe not get merged. Steel1943 (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, but only if the category issue gets worked out successfully. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have started the related category merging discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 4#Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press. Steel1943 (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but do not lose any functionality. I.e. if the categories are not also merged, the new combined templates must include both categories. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge templates and categories. I'd suggest putting the category discussion on hold pending this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any mention of the different functions of these templates so far. Have the people commenting above looked through the history of Template:Online source? The function of that template was originally to list WP articles that were cited as a source of information by other websites (changed here for some reason), whereas Template:Press is to list times where a WP page is the subject of press coverage. To make matters slightly more confusing, the original function is redundant to Template:Notable citation, and the current function is also redundant to Template:High traffic. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. Now that is confusing. I do think these are two different things, but the line is rather fuzzy. For example, if a newspaper says "according to wikipedia, Jimmy Wales has blue eyes, but in reality they are shimmering green" - now, is that "citing" wikipedia? Or is it just the WP page as a subject of press coverage? Given that, I think we should delete {{Notable citation}}, and merge these other two, and then make sure they are all focused on when press mention the wikipedia article. Tagging wikipedia articles because someone cited them in an academic paper is a bit ridiculous and navel gazing of us.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2013 (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) 00:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the concern mentioned prior to this relisting, I had listed this for proposal based on the current functions of these templates. Somewhere down the line, these two templates were edited to essentially replicate each other in function, causing them to look like duplicates of each other. However, in response to Obi-Wan Kenobi's thought to delete {{Notable citation}}, I would actually think that the better option would be to make it a redirect to target the title of the "new" template created by this merge (provided that there is a merge that happens during this discussion); that way, those articles can be possibly tagged properly with a template. Steel1943 (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my last statement, in regards to JohnnyMrNinja's statement about Template:Online source previously having a "different function", after understanding what that previous function was, it still seems very similar to what Template:Press is now; both templates seem to mention when a Wikipedia page is referenced by some other media source, in one way or another. Steel1943 (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge of template & respective categories. I'm leaning toward the Template:online source being the one to merge to, since it seems more clear in what its purpose is. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all: We've also got {{high traffic}} and (perhaps) {{notable citation}}; there should be only one template, or maybe two (one for mentioning and one for citing). --N Y Kevin 20:12, 21 November 2013 (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.