Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 21

< May 20	May 22 >

May 21

Template:Wpnamespacemove

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. delldot ∇. 16:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned, was once created for the Wikipedia namespace, when {{subst:Requested move}} didn't work within the Wikipedia namespace, but since it now works, we should delete this template to make sure that a consistent formatting is always used, which the bot always recognizes. The Evil IP address (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (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:Move-specialized

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 Soft redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move-specialized (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now redundant to {{subst:Requested move}}, which is by now able to handle other namespaces than the article namespace, thus this template only hesitates the process of WP:RM in case someone uses this to request a page move, because the bot doesn't recognize it. The Evil IP address (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. (Replace with an explanation that the template is obsolete and instruction to use {{subst:requested move}} instead). That would be more helpful than a red link. —David Levy 00:58, 22 May 2010 (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:Retired Pricing Games

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. delldot ∇. 16:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Retired Pricing Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles that originally linked through the template have been merged and redirected to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Template is no longer needed. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2010 (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:Featuredportal

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. No explanation was given for why tagging as historical would be useful, so I'm assuming this was not important. delldot ∇. 16:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer used, it's now within {{ArticleHistory}}, which fits these purposes much better than this template. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag as historical. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essays are historical. Dead and dusty templates are just cluttering up templatespace and making it harder for editors to find the templates they're looking for. With no current uses as designed this can be safely deleted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only userful templates in template space.--moɳo 05:52, 22 May 2010 (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:Cite Post-World War II bombers

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. delldot ∇. 18:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Post-World War II bombers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use citation -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:27, 21 May 2010 (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:Cite Poobala

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. delldot ∇. 18:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Poobala (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use citation; links to website that appears to fail reliable source test -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:20, 21 May 2010 (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:CiteTheAnts

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. delldot ∇. 18:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused specific-source template -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:25, 21 May 2010 (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:Cite4Wiki

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 userfy. No strong reason to delete, but there seems to be some reluctance to have it in the mainspace. I'm currently looking for someone to host it in their userspace, let me know if you want to. delldot ∇. 18:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite4Wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in articles; subst current uses in userspace -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the template to publicize a very useful tool that helps generate citations for articles. The reason we use a template is that the information about the tool occasionally changes. The use of a template makes it easy to keep the info current wherever it appears. Substitution would defeat the purpose. Jehochman ^Talk 12:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe it has been subst'ed in various places, and thus does not show many links. Typically what happens is somebody asks "how can I create these citations" and the answer is to point out this tool, using the template. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really needs a doc page so we know what it is for. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't know how to install a doc page. Jehochman ^Talk 22:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the documentation markup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace: quite useless.--moɳo 01:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have to be so rude? We're trying to have a rational discussion here. Jehochman ^Talk 03:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that keeping this in a template is appropriate; software recommendations should be tailored to the pages they're inserted into. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 22 May 2010 (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:Cite-WWT

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. If this template is going to be used in a number of articles in the future as indicated by AnakngAraw, it should be kept. Having a reference, which is used in multiple articles, placed in a special template is an appropriate use of templates, in my opinion. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite-WWT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use citation -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Will be using template more later on. - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Use named refs or just copy/paste.--moɳo 01:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 2 June 2010 (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:Cite-Hammond

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. See above. Ruslik_Zero 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite-Hammond (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use citation -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Will be using template more later on. - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Use named refs or just copy/paste.--moɳo 01:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 2 June 2010 (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:Cite-FEEF2

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. See above. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite-FEEF2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use citation -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Will be using template more later on. - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 2 June 2010 (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:Cite manual

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. Looks like some of the keeps feel like this template is useful (unlike with articles, "it's useful" is a valid argument for keeping a template). I didn't see much support for (or opposition to) the idea of changing the core or book templates here, but that can certainly be discussed outside of this TFD. delldot ∇. 21:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite manual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{cite book}}; both are based on {{citation/core}} and both give the exact same output. Update current uses ~~and redirect~~. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Cite book. This should automatically update the citations if the output is the same. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, they are not exactly the same. In any case, can anyone point out what parameters a manual has than no book has? — Hellknowz ▎talk 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. {{Cite manual}} uses |section= and |version=, where {{Cite book}} uses |chapter= and |edition=. Forget the redirect. I cite a lot of manuals and cite book has every field I have ever needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While manuals and books may be similar, there's the issue that manuals can be completely virtual, lack the same type of rigorous publishing information books have (eg most have no ISBN number or special publisher, and author is nearly always the game's publisher). It's important they are built off the core cite templates, but there are enough different fields that "book" expects that "manual" cannot to require us to continue to use "manual".

Manuals exist for far more than games. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--MASEM (t) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One difference is that manuals don't have editions as books, but release versions. In addition, templates aren't just a tool for displaying formatted information, they usually carry "semantic" information attached. Think about the metadata that can be associated with citation templates, and the tools that this metadata would allow, for example a tool to infer the quality of an article based on its references (e.g. peer-reviewed papers vs. usenet forums). My feeling is the contents of a manual have different connotations than information extracted from other sources, including published books. Manuals are released by the "owner" of a "product", having both positive (official information) and negative (not independent source) implications. —surueña 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. There is no requirement that a book or a manual has to be available in hardcopy, nor that it have an ISBN. What is the difference between a manual and a book? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why is |version= is feeding into {{Citation/core}} |Series=? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks different. moɳo 05:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a discussion about this on VG Project talk as well. — Hellknowz ▎talk 12:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the reasons for having different templates for different media is to make it easier for the editor filling the template. For example, it is usually immediately apparent to the editor citing a manual what the data for |section= should be. Manuals are often organised differently from books, and I can see no reason to ask an editor to guess which parameter from {{cite book}} is the right one when citing a manual. Anyone trying to cite the US Navy Diving Manual (6 revisions, 5 volumes, 21 chapters and 8 appendices – with page numbers restarting at each chapter) will appreciate not having to force the cite to conform with what is expected for a book. --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Using the example from Decompression sickness:

using cite manual

U.S. Navy Supervisor of Diving (2008). "Chapter 20: Diagnosis and Treatment of Decompression Sickness and Arterial Gas Embolism". U.S. Navy Diving Manual (PDF). SS521-AG-PRO-010, revision 6. Vol. volume 5. U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command. p. 37. Retrieved 15 May 2010. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

using cite book to reproduce the above

U.S. Navy Supervisor of Diving (2008). "Chapter 20: Diagnosis and Treatment of Decompression Sickness and Arterial Gas Embolism". U.S. Navy Diving Manual (PDF). SS521-AG-PRO-010, revision 6. Vol. volume 5. U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command. p. 37. Retrieved 15 May 2010. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Still no response to these questions:

What is the difference between a book and a manual?

What parameters are missing from Cite book that would be useful for manuals?

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers (1) Books and manuals often have different organisations, as the example was intended to indicate. (2) Since large manuals are often available online with different sections at different urls, |sectionurl= is helpful. Nobody is doubting that given a sufficiently complex citation template, almost any source can be shoe-horned into it. I merely disagree with the philosophy of throwing away usefully named parameters for the sake of having fewer templates. It's not impossible to produce the same output using {{cite book}}, but if I were citing an appendix of the USN Diving Manual, why would I call the appendix section a chapter (when it's not a chapter), and why would I want to call the version of the manual a series? --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

There are not enough difference between Cite book and Cite manual to justify separate templates. Let's compare the differences in parameters:

Citation/core IncludedWorkURL is fed by:
- Cite manual sectionurl
- Cite book chapter-url, chapterurl, and contribution-url
Citation/core Series is fed by:
- Cite manual version
- Cite book series

Regardless of the parameter name, the output is the same. Cite manual version is technically misusing Citation/core Series, as that is defined as "series of which this periodical is a part." Edition would be more appropriate, but it adds "ed." which is not appropriate.

Proposals:

Request that Version be added to Citation/core
Request that version be added to Cite book
Request that sectionurl be added as an alias to Cite book

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The data for manuals that I am likely to cite are somewhat different from the data that I would normally provide for a book, although there is certainly some overlap. In particular, I would normally want to specify all of
- Vendor
- Title
  - Often formatted on multiple lines
- Identifier, typically referred to as
  - Order number
  - Form number
- Revision, sometimes imbedded in the identifier

I realize that cite manual doesn't map perfectly to those, but is it really desiable to modify cite book for the purpose? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2010 (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:ConstellationsByBartsch

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. delldot ∇. 15:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is not used, and it provides incorrect information, both the constellations listed were invented by Petrus Plancius in c:a 1593–1595. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- seems pointless and inaccurate. Reyk _YO! 19:41, 24 May 2010 (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:Rope

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. delldot ∇. 15:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this template serves no constructive purpose. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 02:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inflammatory. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused and unuseful. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
!Delete I was making it to show people disucssing whether or not vandals should be given leeway (per WP:ROPE). A p3rson ‽ 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essays which assume bad faith of contributors probably shouldn't be promoted from templatespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes A p3rson, I understood so when digging into the essays pointed to. No blame! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is this a delete or no? A p3rson ‽ 03:47, 28 May 2010 (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:Iw

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) 06:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The effort saving here is negligible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, having just discovered it, I might even occasionally use it. What would be the gain in deleting it?--Kotniski (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TMTOWTDI typically leads to user confusion over which way to do things, arguments over picking one over the other, and occasionally unwanted differences in output. The standard method of interwiki linking is no more difficult to use and is vastly more commonplace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems silly to me, and I would tentatively support deleting it as a matter of good housekeeping. However, we can't measure the use of substitute-only templates by their incoming links. If the page view statistics for the template [1] also cover substitutions (I have no idea if that's the case; does anyone know?), then I would say they are consistent with this template not being used at all. Hans Adler 10:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template doesn't leave anything to identify itself when substituted, so there's no way of knowing when it's being used that way. I could add code to track that temporarily. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent idea. Why don't you do that, and then we come back in a few months. Deleting the silly thing really isn't the most pressing thing on this project anyway, and this way we avoid feedback of the more furious type if it turns out that someone really loves it. How would you do the tracking? In the places where it is substituted, or is there a mechanism for leaving information in a different place? Hans Adler 15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to bother? If this template annoys you so much, just delete it and wait to see if anyone objects - if they do, put it back.--Kotniski (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also true, so: delete. Hans Adler 22:17, 21 May 2010 (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:Érsekújvár (Nové Zámky) District

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 see May 16, May 12, May 5, February 25, February 4, and January 26 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Template:Érsekújvár (Nové Zámky) District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)[reply]

Delete Another redundant template (created January 2010) in this case redundant to the original {{Nové Zámky District}} created May 2006. See also . Note: Hungarian names are minority/alternative names in Slovakia. iadrian (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2010 (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.