Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 20

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< 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This template is unused and out of date.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]

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]

  • 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]
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.
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]

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"