Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 17: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 126: Line 126:
*:Archive for dead link search box works so think archive for the live link search box would work in the future as archive downloads the page so don't think [[WP:LINKROT]] would apply.
*:Archive for dead link search box works so think archive for the live link search box would work in the future as archive downloads the page so don't think [[WP:LINKROT]] would apply.
*:Thanks [[User:Indagate|Indagate]] ([[User talk:Indagate|talk]]) 07:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
*:Thanks [[User:Indagate|Indagate]] ([[User talk:Indagate|talk]]) 07:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
*:: I did not say those templates were new, not that it matters either way. A template survived a deletion proposal, that only shows that some of the most active editors (active enough to pay attention to deletion discussions) find these kinds of templates convenient, that doesn't necessarily make them a good idea in general. Valid objections were raised by user DarkWarriorBlake, these specific interest templates add more layers of complexity, more barriers, for minimal benefit. (A bot could replace cite Cinemascore with an Cite web but also add a {{tl|better reference needed}} tag too while it was at it.) You can question the quality of Box Office Mojo, I do too, but it is clearly a higher standard than an empty search box, and I listed it (second to) last intentionally. Deadline is a far better source for anything recent, and Ew.com was usually good enough before Deadline existed. IIRC, Last I checked the archive URL we have have for Cinemascore with a long list of scores only went up as far as 2019, [[WP:LINKROT]] will be a problem sooner or later, linking to an empty search box is asking for trouble. I would hope that Cinemascore might eventually give us a better website where direct targeted links are possible, but linking to an empty search box should not be acceptable and it should not be encouraged. It is good that people have recognized there are problems here, but this template only encourages more problems. <br> The convenience argument was enough to save {{tl|Cite Rotten Tomatoes prose}} from deletion, this discussion may yet turn in that direction, who knows. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.78.193.194|109.78.193.194]] ([[User talk:109.78.193.194|talk]]) 20:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


==== [[Template:RfarOpenTasks/Status/1]] ====
==== [[Template:RfarOpenTasks/Status/1]] ====

Revision as of 20:14, 20 April 2022

< April 16 April 18 >

April 17

Template:Jones-dennis

Unused citation template. The exact citation is used outside of template space on Moel Tryfan (locomotive). WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional delete. The template is unused and apparently has one potential transclusion; you don't need a dedicated citation template for that. If the author thinks the source will be used elsewhere then that's a reason to keep it. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KHL Sisak roster

Single-use roster list. Substitute on the KHL Sisak page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan Map plot

Unused location map that was intended to borrow the function of its Japanese Wikipedia counterpart. However, it's nothing like Mapplot Japan. Doesn't seem to be necessary for use on this Wikipedia. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Illinois NRHP date for lists

Unused and outdated since 2008. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fastest known times for Pyrenees routes and summits

Unused and don't see a place for this to be used on Wikipedia. The only edits by the creator has just been working on this template. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:File specifications caption

This template was formerly a subpage of a deleted template page prior to being moved to its current title a few hours ago. Per my comment at Template talk:File specifications caption#Requested move 15 March 2022 (changed a bit):

There isn't any need for this template because it replicates functionality that the "File:" namespace already has. When applicable, this information (technically, it's metadata) appears on a file's description when the respective file is uploaded. So, delete this template as unnecessary and redundant. This information this template displays is not necessary on file links since besides already being present on the file description page, it just adds more clutter to a page with information that's not helpful there anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as I indicated in the move request, one could see that someone might use this in the description of a file, when used in a discussion, perhaps discussing issues with file sizes and resolutions and what file to use; presented as part of a gallery or embed; so would need to be used on a file page itself. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arts of Azerbaijan

Unused specific citation template that was probably created in the wrong space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Royal Malaysian Air Force aircraft

Unused as the same list is already featured on List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Universal fire

Unused template that adds a citation relating to 2008 Universal Studios fire but not used on that article. Probably created in the wrong space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you may be misinterpreting the intent of this template. If I understand correctly, it's designed to be substituted into articles on artists whose masters were destroyed in the fire, so I would expect it to have no transclusions. - Eureka Lott 02:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It actually isn't substituted. The article of the subject uses the exact citation in this template outside of template space seven times. It's listed as reference number 18. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This template has been substituted into a number of articles. Please see the articles for Sheryl Crow, Joe Jackson, Bob Hope, and The Roots, among others. - Eureka Lott 15:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reference can be better served without this format. All it does is state the name of the artist(s) and then "was among hundreds of artists whose material was destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire". Not a great way of adding the necessary information. I think repetition of this kind should be avoided as this should be included in the article as article text, not through substitution from template space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2020 Webby Awards

Unnecessary template using the subst pagename function just to say this person won a 2020 Webby Award. Not a good use of template space to just state this in biographical articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Members of the Kurdistan Regional Government

Unused template with no mainspace for use but also pretty out-of-date. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miqaats of Syedna Burhanuddin

Unused and primarily presents itself as article content. Not sure where this could be used. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Clorox Company

Unused specific citation template that was probably created in the wrong space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Year in State of Palestine

Unused year navigational infobox. One for each year for each country is not necessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It was a while back ago but I think I made this template as an effort to fix an error on the rendering of the Year in Palestine infobox. It's not used on any pages so deleting it doesn't have any negative effect on those pages. Thanks for messaging me WikiCleanerMan and recommend a speedy close. Cheers, Dan the Animator 19:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2019 Netball World Cup Scotland netball team roster

No longer needed as the roster is already on 2019 Netball World Cup squads as part of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2018 Asian Games Iran men's volleyball team roster

Unused with all the players on the roster already listed on Volleyball at the 2018 Asian Games – Men. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite CinemaScore

CinemaScore has no additional parameters with their URL to help cite a film's score. Its database just exists at cinemascore.com, with a search bar to narrow results to find the film in question. This doesn't need a whole template dedicated to it, when {{cite web}} is more than sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 230 templates currently exist that wrap Template:Cite Web exist per Category:Templates that wrap Cite web (258), don't see why this shouldn't exist when those do. Reasons to keep are helpful for standardisation, better for editors, and good for future preservation.
This template standardises the title and website parameters of normal cite web, and adds a note that was in some articles such as featured list List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films before template so I didn't write note myself. Note exists because it's a search engine and individual pages not available. That can easily be amended and discussion can take place at its talk page regarding it if anyone wants. I noticed a lot of inconsistency in title and website parameters when Template:Cite web used, or other parameter used like publisher, template standardises that.
Reducing parameters means easier to find access-date parameter to update, access-date should be updated if reference used in a franchise article and new entry added for example
A lot of pages had a dead link, https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/, either with archive or just dead, instead of https://www.cinemascore.com/, so a template may help to resolve issue in future by replacing url and/or adding archive at template-level Indagate (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template is actually detrimental to citation as pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Indagate_and_Cinemascore_template. To access the information on Cinemascore a reader must undertake a search on the title, thus putting up a barrier between the reader and the information. If the site dies then the information is lost. The Cinemascore scores are often widely reported by the industry press which can be directly sourced and archived to prevent link rot. Unfortunately, these direct citations have been replaced in many cases (such as at Batman Begins with indirect citations. This template is a solution looking for a problem and is inferior to the long-standing approach. If the template is deleted, then we need some time to restore the original sourcing. Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Vast majority of cases I replaces direct links to cinmeascore.com so readers already have to use search, that case a box office mojo news article looks unreliable unlike their box office figures. The problem is lack of standardisation between references for CinemaScore, that example is exception/
    Special:Links Search says #1,618 links to CinemaScore so it's widely cited as a suorce itself Indagate (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added note to documentation that think addresses this concern, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_CinemaScore%2Fdoc&type=revision&diff=1083514417&oldid=1082555112 Indagate (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that the URL fails to point to the specific title of interest (I do not know if that can be fixed). --Izno (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno That occurs regardless of whether {{Cite Web}} or {{Cite CinemaScore}} is used, see these diffs
    The second diff has a dead link but still search bar
    Can be replaced with source like Deadline Hollywood like it is in some articles, and that can be good for archive so not saying replace sources like that, but CinemaScore is referenced itself in many articles and think this is better than Cite Web for that Indagate (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then a better citation should be found. Izno (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not always possible to find it in a reliable source, plus I'd say Cite Cinemascore is better than Cite Web even until a better reference is maybe found as has the consistent parameters until then Indagate (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Search links are not targets of citations. This is a misuse. You can either remove the {{cite web}} references and rewrite/repurpose this as a search-link template, or add variable |url=, |title= and |id= expressions that land the reader on the relevant film metric. And document it properly. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not possible though, there isn't a specific film page on the site, references have used search engine before and will if this template is deleted
    See the diffs and you'll see search engine used within cite web, this template just standardises the references Indagate (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Standardising misuse does not correct it. The right thing to do is remove the badly entered {{cite web}} templates, wherever you find them. If there is no specific metric available programmatically, then this wrapper is inapplicable. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have something that says cite web shouldn't be used for a search engine like this?
    The person who proposed this TfD mentioned Cite Web so seems likely would revert to that if deleted unless you propose something else Indagate (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CS1 templates are an application of CS1 whose help page (WP:CS1) follows WP:EL (among others), including WP:ELNO. Point #9 classes search links as "to be normally avoided". Apart from that, the restriction is derived from both the spirit and the letter of citation practice. CS1 citations are subsets of bibliographic records that target specific article-related items. They are not supposed to target searches for such items. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first where was the consensus for any of these sites specific citation templates to begin with? Creating yet another does not seem like a good idea. (For years editors rejected {{cite magazine}} and we were forced to use {{cite journal}} for magazine references, yet somehow recently we've a rash of these site specific templates). Second of all this template is a reference to an empty search box, it is not helpful. (It is better than nothing but only just barely.) The big problem is that the CinemaScore website is fundamentally badly designed and does not give us a way to reference a specific film. I would have been more zealous about killing off these types of references but aside from the obvious user-unfriendlyness and general awfulness of linking to an empty search box the bigger rule I can of is that it violates WP:LINKROT. Editors should be strongly encouraged to link to reliable sources such as Deadline.com, Variety.com, EW.com, the LaTimes.com, BoxOfficeMojo.com if possible (and even the Cinemascore Twitter account as a last resort is better than an empty search box). I can appreciate the good faith effort to make things more consistent but unfortunately this template makes things consistently worse. I do hope more can be done to address the underlying problems that have been highlighted here. Thank you Indagate, and thank you Favre1fan93, either way this goes you are helping to make a better encyclopedia. -- 109.78.206.47 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Site specific templates aren't particularly new, e.g. the RT and MC ones that's commonly used alongside this one was created two years ago, the RT one passed an TfD one year ago, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 9
    The previous reference for most of these pages was an empty search box, others a dead link search box, so that won't change if template deleted. The note saying the enter film in search box was not present on most articles but was present on a couple, think that helps the issue of it being a search but can be ach
    I'd agree it should be replaced with something like Deadline, but that hasn't happened for the many references to CinemaScore before templates creation and doesn't seem proposed, so likely won't for most cases in the future as not priority and not something bot can do. I'd disagree with BoxOfficeMojo from your list though and not aware of editorial standards checking of their articles so probably not a reliable source for that, is for box office figures. Anyone is free to change the documentation.
    Archive for dead link search box works so think archive for the live link search box would work in the future as archive downloads the page so don't think WP:LINKROT would apply.
    Thanks Indagate (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say those templates were new, not that it matters either way. A template survived a deletion proposal, that only shows that some of the most active editors (active enough to pay attention to deletion discussions) find these kinds of templates convenient, that doesn't necessarily make them a good idea in general. Valid objections were raised by user DarkWarriorBlake, these specific interest templates add more layers of complexity, more barriers, for minimal benefit. (A bot could replace cite Cinemascore with an Cite web but also add a {{better reference needed}} tag too while it was at it.) You can question the quality of Box Office Mojo, I do too, but it is clearly a higher standard than an empty search box, and I listed it (second to) last intentionally. Deadline is a far better source for anything recent, and Ew.com was usually good enough before Deadline existed. IIRC, Last I checked the archive URL we have have for Cinemascore with a long list of scores only went up as far as 2019, WP:LINKROT will be a problem sooner or later, linking to an empty search box is asking for trouble. I would hope that Cinemascore might eventually give us a better website where direct targeted links are possible, but linking to an empty search box should not be acceptable and it should not be encouraged. It is good that people have recognized there are problems here, but this template only encourages more problems.
    The convenience argument was enough to save {{Cite Rotten Tomatoes prose}} from deletion, this discussion may yet turn in that direction, who knows. -- 109.78.193.194 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RfarOpenTasks/Status/1

Hey guys, this department is not being used. Q28 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with its parent Template:RfarOpenTasks/Status. Template:RfarOpenTasks was blanked and redirected on May 10, 2009‎ so these aren't needed anymore. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Template:RfarOpenTasks/Status.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cts

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded wrapper for the station link as {{stl|CTrain}} can be used directly. Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2022 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_17&oldid=1083801546"