Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< June 24 June 26 >

June 25

edit


Template:This User

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; deleted by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:This User (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not appear to be a useful template in Wikipedia DexDor (talk) 19:25, 25 June 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:Current Conservative MPs

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) 05:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current Conservative MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is overkill, and should be replaced with a list. I assume that it links to all current Conservative MPs, and there are over 300 of them. This adds an excessive payload to every page, and make whatlinkshere useless for every current Conservaive MP. I can see the attraction of improving navigation between MPs, but this should be done by a navbox which links to a list, rather than effectively transcluding that list into every article on an MP. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 25 June 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:Members of the House of Commons

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) 05:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Members of the House of Commons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is pure overkill. If it is ever completed, it will have links to all 650 MPs. This would add an excessive payload to every page, and make whatlinkshere useless for every current MP. I can see the attraction of improving navigation between MPs, but this should be done by a navbox which links to a list, rather than effectively transcluding that list into every article on a current MP. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 25 June 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:FAT sponsors

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) 04:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAT sponsors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not sure of the use of this Navbox, it is merely a set of links to sponsors. These will change over time and it is difficult to see how the links can be verified. Fenix down (talk) 14:19, 25 June 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:Thai Premier League teamlist

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) 01:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thai Premier League teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to essentially duplicate this, more up to date version. Fenix down (talk) 14:14, 25 June 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:S-Bahn systems in Austria

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 redirect to Template:Urban public transport in Austria. Everything is already in the target template. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-Bahn systems in Austria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Urban public transport in Austria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:S-Bahn systems in Austria with Template:Urban public transport in Austria.
Completely redundant …    FDMS  4    13:21, 25 June 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:Electronica

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 to Template:Electronica. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Electronica (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Electronic dance music-footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Electronica with Template:Electronic dance music-footer.
Both templates cover almost the same topics (much of the listed subgenres belong to both electronica and electronic dance music). I don't see much sense in keeping them both. Λeternus (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, not all the stuff in the Electronica template are genres, but we can add more rows to the template and only use one. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No clear boundary between these two areas of electronic music exists, i.e. it would be arbitrary for us to attempt drawing one. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 23:33, 26 June 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:Race in the 2000 U.S. Census

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) 01:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Race in the 2000 U.S. Census (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not sure of the purpose of this infobox. First, it should be renamed to the 2010 census. Second, it does not actually point to race as defined in the census. I think it could (at least multiracial does) link to subsections at Race and ethnicity in the United States but 2010_United_States_Census#Controversies is the only place that discusses race in the 2010 census. Using links to the general articles on US demographics makes this no different than Template:Demographics of the United States. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 25 June 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:Australian Trilobite References

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) 04:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian Trilobite References (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think it's good practice to hard-code various sources. When editors look at articles like Emuellidae, it shouldn't say that to edit (the external links section for some reason), editors need to go find this template. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This template is used by many Trilobite pages, some of which have not been written yet. It is a convenience for past, present and future editors. If the template is properly done, there should be no need to edit it. There's no need to "go find" the template, the link is clearly written along with the links. Unless there is a clear policy against this sort of thing, I am in favor of keeping it. PAR (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The weight of consensus is against your opinion about hard-coding various sources. That is why Category:Specific-source templates has over 60,000 pages in it. Templates such as this make it easy to cite the same source(s) in multiple articles, and to add one source to multiple articles by adding it in a single location. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not subst the template so that it can be revised later? It seems to just create a walled-garden so that only established users who understand the system will get what's going on? Are people really copying and pasting a list of sources before they create articles? Wouldn't it be better to write out the sources as they are used in the articles rather than make an (educated) guess about what sources discuss the topic? Also specific-source templates largely involve single citation templates and not lists and even then, I've been substing and requesting the deletion of ones that are literally hard-coded copies of templates as they would fall under WP:T3. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you subst the template and it was used in many articles, you have to edit multiple articles to update information about any one of the sources. Leaving it as a template means that you have to edit only one templates to update information in multiple articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 2 is a deadlink but because it's in template space and not article, it doesn't show up at External links search so if it's used somewhere else, no one will know. Why is this a better way to keep track of sources than just posting them to the articles? How often are sources updated that this is a real concern? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Templates like this need to be modified. I have modified many thousands of them in the past year and a half. Here's a link to just a few of the edits I have made to single-source templates. Making changes such as these to the dozens or hundreds of articles in which some of these templates are transcluded would have been much more time-consuming. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see a difference with a template for one citation and a template for a block of them? I mean, we can't insert another source in the middle if one article requires it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be inserted in the middle rather than after the template? PAR (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If, for example, I have a source to add, why not put them alphabetically rather than work around this oddball block? I really don't get it; is it really that hard to copy-and-paste regular text like this? Make a sandbox and save the text there to copy-and-paste, why is it absolutely necessary to make and keep using a template for nine articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This text is article data and belongs in the articles. The presence of this in template hurts the ability of new users to edit (as they have to figure out its a template, track it down, and edit it), and any change to the template could invalidate a particular citation on one the the pages using it (such as when a new edition of a publication is released, changing content, page numbers, etc.). Fundamentally, use of this template is exactly like lying to anyone reading these articles. There is a disconnect between the source of a citation, and the wording placed into the articles. Some of the pages using this template are very short, and its apparent that these all these references are not being used as the source for that article, but are essentially misleading spam. Article content must be cited to specific reference material. This fundamental scholarly duty overrides any considerations voiced above related to "convenience". -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hate copy and pasting. We should do this with all articles in case someone needs to use their references — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.32 (talk) 00:43, 14 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) 04:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we set one up, I doubt we'd go with merging multiple references into a single location. If it was separate templates for each reference, it's be less problematic (problematic to me, but less). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:55, 6 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:Cite doi/10.5665.2Fsleep.1378

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) 04:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite doi/10.5665.2Fsleep.1378 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. I wonder if there's a need for the over 49k and growing templates at Category:Cite doi templates? Basically it looks like a bot went through every doi that exists and created a template if someone wants to cite them. Since most aren't cited, it's just thousands of empty templates to me. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ricky I doubt there are that many orphaned Category:Cite doi templates and you can always delete them if they bother you. There are over 67 million DOIs in existence, so using Template:cite doi is a very handy way of adding references (often primary sources) without tediously typing in all the details by hand. 49k is a tiny proportion of the 67 million total. Duncan.Hull (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This well-formatted, complete template (with incoming cite pmc and cite pmid redirects) does no harm and may help an editor who wishes to cite this journal article without typing in all of the tedious details. I routinely nominate unused cite doi templates for deletion, but only when they were created in error, for DOIs that do not exist. This one is potentially useful and should be kept. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But is there going to be a review of all these articles? It would be odd to, say, create templates with the full citation for every single public domain books in Google Books (or every website or whatever) in case someone later comes along wanting to cite and use one of the templates (not the authority but just the template itself). Wouldn't it be better to create only those that actually use them rather than just creating for the sake of creating? If there are 67 million, then why were only these 49k created? Are we going to create 67 million templates eventually? I'm just trying to see the policy rationale beyond "it could be useful." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a discussion on the basic problem at Wikipedia_talk:Template namespace#Proposal: The Template namespace is not for use as an arbitrary repository of raw data. --Netoholic @ 22:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Frietjes but I don't think edits like this to convert plain text into templates are what I intended. Do you think it would be better if every citation was converted into doi templates? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why does the DOI and PMID template systems work this way? What's the point of creating so many templates, mostly single use? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst, and Delete and Comment I think this whole system of single-reference DOI/JSTOR/ISBN/etc templates deserves a major RFC on the topic. I don't look forward to a time when our template space starts trying to recreate the DOI system of 67 million references. If this function proves necessary to WP (I have my doubts), then the proper solution is a technical/back-end one from the devs (like this one, not a massive system of templates each individually used on so few articles. --Netoholic @ 20:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Vote added. Netoholic @ 19:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a major problem with these templates in that they are only useful on articles that use a particular citation style. If used on articles that do not follow that particular style then you end up with inconsistent references. As an example on an article that uses first/last order for authors the introduction of these template will create a last/first order entry for the author. The whole system needs a rethink and if they are to remain some switching parameters need introducing to get output in articles consistent. Keith D (talk) 17:23, 8 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) 04:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I used to be a big fan of these templates, because they are a quick way of inserting references. However, it was pointed out to me (I forget who it was, perhaps Headbomb, that these templates have the big drawback that they only very seldom are on someones watchlist, making them excellent targets for vandalism, which could go undetected for a long time. Articles are on watchlists, so since then, I use {{cite journal |doi=xxxx}} and let Citationbot do the rest. (Note that Citationbot is also the bot that would fill in these cite doi templates). An independent problem that I noted is a formatting error that occurs if the journal name is wikilinked (which ideally it should be), but the reference is used in the article on the journal itself. Now the journal name in the reference will be displayed in bold instead of as a wikilink... These two reason have led me to abandoning the use of these templates. --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venu This affects more than this template. The cite id system is designed so that articles which uses the system put the reference data on a separate page which can be more easily completed, edited, and maintained, by both humans and by bots. If the proposal is to get rid of this system entirely, start an RFC, and lose because it would be a pain in the ass to de-implement it, and annoy a great deal of people who uses it. If the proposal is to get rid of the orphaned templates, it's possible that it gets consensus. One benefit is that it would reduce the number of templates on which to perform maintenance. I would probably support this, but the discussion needs to be explicitly about all such templates, and not only one of those. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I question this one alone and ask only that this template alone be subst and deleted (for the closing admin to consider). I will start an RfC based on the discussion here (to get a better idea of various concerns). If this ended in a WP:SNOW speedy keep then the time and energy on an RFC would have been unnecessary. Note that my concern on it being orphaned is no longer true since Frietjes replaced the text with a template which I comment is not what I consider an improvement. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this one, but I would like to see a broader discussion about deleting all, say unused, or single use doi templates. the idea that this could be handled by a mediawiki module is compelling, but it appears that hasn't happened yet. Frietjes (talk) 23:23, 27 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_25&oldid=1138534115"