Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 27

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27[edit]

Template:PD-AustraliaGov[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. Although there is consensus the status quo is not the ideal situation, there is also no consensus to delete it either. Please feel free to split it, refactor it, etc. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-AustraliaGov (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is covered by {{PD-Australia}} which specifies terms for Australian State and Federal governments. The wording of the text erroneously specifies ...and was published... which isnt a requirement as PD in Australia only specifies was taken prior to 1955. Gnan garra 09:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth keeping this template as a wrapper for PD-Australia that also categorizes the file specifically as being a government work rather than generically PD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I'll support this conversion to a wrapper.~~ We still could later redirect it if the category is decided to be unneeded. —PC -XT + 02:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Support withdrawn, see below —PC -XT + 06:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]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) 22:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to wrapper. Mojoworker (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split {{PD-Australia}} into multiple separate templates. It is not a good idea to have a list of seven different situations in a template as this leads to confusion as to which situation applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a different discussion, but I would rather support merging this with a split of {{PD-Australia}} than with the whole list. I trust Stefan2's experience, so I'm now thinking it would be confusing to wrap this to the full list, even if it is split later, so I'll withdraw my support until a split occurs. I may support a reverse merge/split, taking the relevant item from {{PD-Australia}} to merge into this template. It would be best to include both templates in discussion to do this, though. —PC -XT + 06:41, 6 August 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:Pink Floyd singles[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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pink Floyd singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pink Floyd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to singles section of {{Pink Floyd}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the singles section of {{Pink Floyd}} is disorganized and lacking in information (ex. date of release, what country the single was released in, B-sides, etc.) This template expands on the singles category. However, if it is to stay, the singles section of {{Pink Floyd}} should be removed. Another idea is to add the singles template inside the {{Pink Floyd}}, in a manner akin to the {{Beach Boys}} template. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Better to improve the existing template than create a partial fork. Your additional information should be merged into the former. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would merging require a new discussion? If this is merged, I'd obviously say delete —PC -XT + 01:03, 23 July 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) 22:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Coverage at Pink Floyd discography is what is done for many musical acts. Only the more significant singles should be listed at Template:Pink Floyd, not all the singles from this template. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Don't know who thought separating singles / songs templates from band templates altogether was a good idea or why it was allowed to happen. It needs to stop. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 22:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Now that the Pink Floyd template is expanded, there is no use for the new singles one. I accept your decision to do so. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 14:23, 1 August 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:Missing article[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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missing article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Missing article with Template:Search.
I updated the missing article template so that there were no longer any dead links, and additionally added some new useful links, such as HathiTrust and Archive.org. I think the best way to go is to merge the templates, as they have the same uses, and simply make either one of them a redirect. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{search}} should not redirect to "missing article". Many uses for search are not anything related to a non-existant article. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:07, 20 July 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) 22:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge, but use 'search' as the basename for the merged template. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but use 'search' as the base name for the merged template. S a g a C i t y (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 'search' as the name used —PC -XT + 01:12, 3 August 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:WikiProject Citizendium Porting[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) 02:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The project is inactive, the site if not dead is on life support. Most of it hasn't been updated in years and is certainly not a good source of content for WP, especially as this appears on mostly very active pages that long ago improved past the point where they could benefit from a refresh from CZ, if they ever could. Maybe once useful but now pointless clutter on some high traffic talk pages. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have asked the participants of WikiProject Citizendium Porting whether they are o.k. with marking the project as defunct (which would imply that this template should be removed). So far, one has said yes, one thinks it is premature and another is going to see if there is anything that can be done to resurrect the project. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep make the project defunct first. We should not delete the banner if the project is only inactive. This nomination is getting the process backwards. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? The reasons for deletion are it serves no purpose, both because the project is inactive and the site is dead by any reasonable metric. As it's inactive there's no activity to participate in if you follow the first link. If an editor on their own initiative visits CZ anyway they'll find it dead. A handful of content edits a day[1]. One article stuck waiting for approval for over two[2]. No new approved articles for three years[3]. The latter is a particular problem for porting content across.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's doing things backwards, so could set an unwanted precedent to cite in deleting project banners. So, it's a process thing. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We shouldn't give up on this. Citizendium has in the past made it impossible to move WP articles to Citizendium ,and still makes it very difficult; I think this was a major factors inhibiting its growth--certainly my initial intent there was to work on articles suitable simultaneously for both encyclopedias. This project is the reciprocal one, to take the relative small amount of good content there where we either do not have articles or have just sketchy ones (most of their content does meet our standards, once their references are converted to our system, it's just that they have compared to us such a small amount of content). I've always meant to do some of this, but I have to admit I haven;t done any recently. But I nonetheless think it very important to keep up whatever connections we can maintain--their purpose is not opposed oto our, but complementary. Especially if they never od reach a critical mass, it would be good it =f the work done there was not altogether wasted. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: According to the table in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Citizendium_Porting#Articles, the last time any content was ported was November 2010. Aside from one editor who is no longer active, no new participants have joined since November 2011. If you're not yet ready to give up on the project, do you have a criterion for deciding when it is time? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline--There are many things here I have been working on at intervals since I came in 2006. To a considerable extent this will depend on the degree to which Citizendium itself will remain active. My view about that is that we should actively encourage all good-faith alternatives and other forms of competition. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the result of my survey of wikiproject members is as follows. Of eight members, three were fine with marking it defunct. Two didn't respond; the project founder, @Cybercobra, still edits occasionally but does not seem to have responded to any messages on their talk page in years. One suggested merging it with WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, but is a little hazy on the details. That leaves two are in favor of continuing the project. It seems to me the best option would be to userfy it. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean like WP:WikiProject Citizendium Porting/banner ? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean - that's a redlink. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to where? Maybe if a user requested it, before or after deletion so they could work on it, but I don't see that here. It could happen at a future date if someone wants to revive the project, but even then it might not be needed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just me thinking aloud. I'm struggling with the balance here. It would be a clearcut decision if all the members of the project agreed to mark it defunct or otherwise dispose of it; but two people want to keep it going, and as far as I can tell from the Wikiproject guide, that's enough for the project to continue. Is an inactive project enough reason to say that the template is not used? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - why is deleting the template necessary? If it has no practical function, why not just remove all instances from article talk pages? VQuakr (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Being unused and unneeded is a reason for deletion: see WP:TFD#REASONS.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The project is not going defunct soon, so the template is still being used. I think the proper interpretation of "not used" in WP:TFD#REASONS is that the template is not on any pages. This template is on over 200 pages, possibly more than are in the list of articles monitored by WikiProject Citizendium Porting. That suggests either that the template is not bothering anyone enough for them to remove it, or someone cares enough about it to replace it after it is removed. Either way there doesn't seem to be sufficient reason to delete it. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Even if we did inactivate the project, we would indeed still need the banner for the articles already done. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- comment There's Template:Citizendium for articles which have been ported, i.e. which incorporate material from CZ.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per RockMagnetist; DGG's comments changed my view of Citizendium's relationship with Wikipedia, and I might even try joining this WikiProject... I would support renomination at a later time if either that site or this project disappears, assuming there is sufficient attribution. —PC -XT + 04:16, 3 August 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:V[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) 02:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose merging Template:V with Template:Navbar.
They both basically do the same thing, namely provide V-T-E links. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Links other than "view · talk · edit" have been deprecated in {{Navbar}} due to this similarity, or it would be partially merged, already. Other (largely redundant) features are summarized in the following table. —PC -XT + 00:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effect	Navbar param(s)	V (or View) markup
v · t · e	`\|mini=1`	{{v\|t\|e}}
view · talk · edit	`\|plain=1`	{{view\|talk\|edit}}
This box: view · talk · edit	default	This box: {{view\|talk\|edit}}
This template: view · talk · edit	`\|text=This template:`	This template: {{view\|talk\|edit}}
[view · talk · edit]	`\|plain=1\|brackets=1`	[{{view\|talk\|edit}}]
CSS for span	`\|fontstyle=`	wrap in span HTML with style sttribute
CSS for div	`\|style=`	wrap in div HTML with style attribute
v · m	deprecated	{{v\|m\|<page>}}
v	deprecated	{{v\|<page>}}

{{v|<page>}} are used in a lot of templates. I think the syntax of navbar should be changed so the text is optional not forced (this box). Christian75 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Parameter syntax is completely incompatible. What is more probable is {{v}}, {{view}} and {{navbar}} calling on the same module in the near future. But I see no benefit in a merge. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking of a wrapper or module, myself, but I'll support a merge if it doesn't cause problems. I think {{Navbar}} could basically wrap {{V}} for the same result, but merged into the same template, the article title looks like it would be a problem requiring usage change and editing of other pages. —PC -XT + 02:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, wouldn't {{V}}'s {{{template|{{{1}}}}}} work for the article title in both templates? Maybe I was thinking of a different parameter... —PC -XT + 02:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but I really like V's flexible syntax a lot more than navbar, so merge with navbar, but use V as the base and add navbar's functions to it. To make it easier, I'd suggest moving V to a better name (maybe Module:Templatelinks/{{templatelinks}}), make the merge update, then start orphaning navbar. -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: Template:Navbar has over 7.5 million transclusions, and Template:V has less than 3500. If we merged, we'd definitely be merging V into Navbar (at least as far as names go), not the other way around. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- V's parameters make it the better merge target, as demonstrated by —PC above. The # of transclusions makes it even more important that the transition happen over time, and neither "V", "View", or "Navbar" are very good names for this merged template. I think my suggestion is the best plan, I don't care how popular navbar is. -- Netoholic @ 17:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think {{V}}/{{View}} is the better merge target, due to the way the parameters work, but if we rename it, the first "v" or "view" would need to be replaced by the new template name. {{Navbar}} could be a wrapped redirect, transcluding {{v|t|e|each_named_param=...}} in a similar way to {{View}} redirecting to {{V}}, (or just using a module for them both, as suggested earlier.) In this way, we could have both using the same code, adding functionality to {{V}}, but preserving the functionality expected for the widely used {{Navbar}}. (Unless a module is used, {{Navbar}} should probably handle |mini=1, using perhaps 2 or 3 #ifs, one for the named parameter used by {{View}}, and one or two (if there is trouble with the "|") to change the second and third parameters between "t|e" and "talk|edit".) If someone wants proof-of-concept code, I may have some time to write it this weekend, unless someone else does it first... —PC -XT + 04:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: It hasn't been mentioned, but a module already exists for {{V}}/{{View}}: Module:Template view. I believe it to be fully functional now, but I held off on reactivating my PER when I saw this discussion. mol uɐɯ 12:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That module looks good. Any thoughts on adding more named parameters that do the same things as those {{Navbar}} provides? If this ends up being called from Navbar, text should be prepended by default, as well. —PC -XT + 05:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comment 5.5 million of {{navbar}} uses are hidden invisibly within WikiProject banners and 1.8 million are similarly hidden within {{asbox}} (stub templates). These mega-use templates need to be looked at. In the case of the ones hiding the links, I see no reason to support them for the maybe dozen or so editors that have customized their CSS to see them. They could incorporate the relevant code into their templates directly rather than call navbar. Anyway, I just wanted to share why there is such scale to this particular template, and show where that transclusion count really comes from. -- Netoholic @ 10:59, 17 July 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) 21:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Fist, given that Edokter opposes (08:41 cmt), is a good indication of incompatibility (beyond surface observations). By myself, I know that {navbar} is tailored to a table environment, and uses <div> tags. This {v}/{view} tempaltes use <span> tags, so allow inline usage & handling (great). Also {v}/{view} is more flexible wrt the links provided, is what I need every now ad then. -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the parameters are currently incompatible isn't a problem. In the process of merging, the new template can be made to work with either set of parameters. The same is true with the block/inline differences. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But at what cost? We would essentially have to write two completely different template in one, complicating the conditional code (either in template or lua) at such a level that really does not warrant merging the two. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think of this as replacing both templates with a newly redesigned one. I would be fine with simply making the templates use the module for now, continuing the consideration of additional parameters, such as |style=, |fontstyle= or wrapped/prepended text, on the module talk page, but it may be better to do it all at once, if we can find consensus. —PC -XT + 00:49, 3 August 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:Rajya Sabha Members from Odisha[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) 02:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rajya Sabha Members from Odisha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A possibly huge template. I am not saying its absolutely unnecessary, but its huge in capacity when formed fully. It comes from List of Rajya Sabha members from Odisha. We also have a Category:Rajya Sabha members from Odisha for navigation purpose. Plus, I guess this is the only in the lot Template:Rajya Sabha Members from Indian state §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medical colleges in India and Template:Airports in India are also two huge templates. Is there any rule/ guideline against the size of this Nav. box ? In case of Nav. boxes almost everywhere there is a related category for navigation purpose. I don't understand what's the problem here. If this Nav. box violates any pre defined guideline/s, then it must be deleted I have no objection. Thanks --Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 09:26, 27 June 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) 03:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better served by a category and a list article. Frietjes (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep many other Navboxes exist with category and list article like Template:Prime Ministers of India, Category:Prime Ministers of India and List of Prime Ministers of India.--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having template for 15 entries is different from having it for 100+. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I do not think this is lengthy at this moment. There are overtly long templates. Plus, this is useful for the articles about the MPs. --Subha^Utter2me! 19:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its currently not long as it's not fully updated. Note that templates can have red-links of notable entries which in future would be blue-links. If all names are added in it, it would have 100+ names in it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:56, 21 July 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) 21:26, 27 July 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:Kylie Minogue source warning[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) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kylie Minogue source warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A useless Kylie Minogue-related template; I replaced it with {{notice}} in Talk:Better Than Today. George Ho (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant —PC -XT + 05:06, 3 August 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:Assess[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) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously used for WP:article assessment. Now it's no longer transcluded by any page, and the Wikipedia page is deprecated and superseded by its successor, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. It is time to delete this template. George Ho (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 29 July 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:Open wikilink & Template:Close wikilink vs. Template:!(( & Template:))![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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Open wikilink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Close wikilink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Template:Open squares (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC))

Template:Close squares (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (added 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC))

Propose merging Template:Open wikilink & Template:Open squares with Template:!((, and Template:Close wikilink & Template:Close squares with Template:))!.
Of course I may be mistaken, but do these templates do precisely the same things? If yes, and if this would not lead to some technical issues like a very costly redirect, I think they should be merged under the shorter (even though more cryptic) titles !(( & ))!, to follow {{((}} and similar. If closed to merge, please note that the former templates are older, so probably their edit histories should be kept at the final titles. YLSS (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Since this sets a precedent for {{square bracket open}}, {{square bracket close}}, {{open squares}}, and {{close squares}}, I think this discussion should include them as mergers to {{(}}, {{)}}, {{((}}, and {{))}}, in order to get as broad a discussion about the full template classes. Van Isaac_WS^cont 23:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added {{open squares}}, and {{close squares}}, thanks for noticing. WRT {{square bracket open}} & {{square bracket close}} vs. {{!(}} & {{)!}}, quite possibly they should also be added, but I do not grasp the purpose of {{square bracket open}} & co., maybe some other hack was intended?.. YLSS (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that {{square bracket open}} & co. are for displaying a single bracket without triggering an external link in the parser. Van Isaac_WS^cont 04:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the purpose of that construction with the second parameter to get either one bracket or two. If there is no hidden context, then yes, all instances of that template can be simply replaced. YLSS (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see you are right. I'd seen that functionality on the open/close combination templates, but didn't realize this one had it too. And just to make it official, if nobody registers an objection by the close, I do, in fact, support this merger proposal. Van Isaac_WS^cont 20:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for simplicity, keep the double and single bracket templates separate. That would have four templates, and multiple redirects to them. And have another template with a variable that defines how many brackets to display and whether they should be open or close. So a total of five templates. If a subst happens with the simple single and double bracket templates, then it won't spitout a boatload of template code. Simple templates being simplicity itself to maintain, and if as {{!}} was turned into magic words, that happens here, then we won't have a mess of complex or shimming templates to deal with. The forms to keep as very simple templates are {{!((}} , {{))!}} , {{!(}} , {{)!}} ; the complex flexible template should be {{square brackets}} -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:!(( and Template:))!. Since the transcluded content is already exactly the same, no "merge" is really necessary beyond just the redirect. With regard to the "others", I agree with 65.94.169.222, except I don't think we need a "complex flexible" one at all. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as redundant, (and keep the others separate per Jackmcbarn) —PC -XT + 04:58, 3 August 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:US 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) 02:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Less functional duplicate of {{United States topic}}. All articles have been changed to use 'United States topic'. Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates backlink is just a link noting that it has been replaced with another template. Bamyers99 (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replace/delete per nom -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparently redundant —PC -XT + 05:11, 3 August 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:Wikipedia talk notice[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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 20:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia talk notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is almost redundant to {{Warning}}. I replaced it with that template in Talk:Wikipedia. If you disagree with the edit, you can revert it back to this template. George Ho (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a template used for just the one page is pointless. Ollieinc (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this an antivandal feature? To move off the text so that people can't easily replace the text? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jj98: - as creator, do you know? Ollieinc (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've created it myself around four years ago. I have no objections support deletion of it. JJ98 (Talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly unlikely to have any uses outside of where it already was used and is redundant. APerson (talk!) 19:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused —PC -XT + 05:12, 3 August 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.