Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sammyrice (talk | contribs) at 05:23, 15 August 2016 (Template:New Zealand Cricket All-time XI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

August 8

External link template, created in 2012. Only two transclusions, and requires the full URL as the parameter value. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-functioning external link template. 55 transclusions. Target site seems to be defunct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The old site was consolidated into a single PDF document, available at http://www.queensu.ca/filmandmedia/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.fmwww/files/files/CBC%20Television%20Linked%20Listings.pdf - the template should be substituted to that link. Dl2000 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd external links template with no parameters, and no subject-specific (deep) links, but including links to search pages. Appears to be mostly used in citations, so may need to be replaced with {{Citation needed}} or similar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think this template serves much purpose – the "All-Time XI" was the creation of a single website, ESPNcricinfo, and there is no article to link to. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet what is the harm of it being there? If other All-time XI's get templates why should this not? Or are we setting a new precedent for them all? Kiwichris (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question is being asked of this template though. AIRcorn (talk)`

Unused, superseded, and marked as deprecated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:

Another help desk template for a deleted tool. Pppery (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused editnotice (Template:Edit fully-protected/editintro through Template:edit semi-protected/editintro are used instead). Pppery (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Creation with Template:HD/new.
Two help desk templates for the same question. Pppery (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose, no demonstration of the merged template. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They have substantially different text, at different levels of detail, thereby providing users a choice of stock answers. I certainly oppose the direction of the merge. The help desk templates listed in {{HDT}}, as shown through Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer, provide a limited list of templates addressing mostly high use issues, with dedicated templates whose names allow responders to easily locate which template might be responsive to a person's question. Because they are stand-alone, unlike HD, it also allows users to click edit, grab some of the model text and modify for their own purposes. Both issues would not be well served by a merge into HD which has about 50 entries to wade through to locate which sub-template addresses the issue. This template also pre-exists HD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about whether the the subtemplates are autonomous pages, it's about how they are accessed. Mechanically, that comes about by a person seeing the link for "How to answer" at the help desk's header → finding the section on answering → seeing there the display of {{HDT}} as well as the description of {{HD}} and then having to scroll through the display of the 50 templates in {{HD}}'s tl;dr shared (dependent) documentation to see which one to use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Articledeleted with Template:HD/del.
More duplicate help desk templates. Pppery (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose, no demonstration of the merged template. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They have substantially different text, at different levels of detail, thereby providing users a choice of stock answers. I certainly oppose the direction of the merge. The help desk templates listed in {{HDT}}, as shown through Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer, provide a limited list of templates addressing mostly high use issues, with dedicated templates whose names allow responders to easily locate which template might be responsive to a person's question. Because they are stand-alone, unlike HD, it also allows users to click edit, grab some of the model text and modify for their own purposes. Both issues would not be well served by a merge into HD which has about 50 entries to wade through to locate which sub-template addresses the issue. This template also pre-exists HD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about whether the the subtemplates are autonomous pages, it's about how they are accessed. Mechanically, that comes about by a person seeing the link for "How to answer" at the help desk's header → finding the section on answering → seeing there the display of {{HDT}} as well as the description of {{HD}} and then having to scroll through the display of the 50 templates in {{HD}}'s tl;dr shared (dependent) documentation to see which one to use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Renaming with Template:HD/move.
Duplicate help desk templates for the same thing. Pppery (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose, no demonstration of the merged template. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They have substantially different text, at different levels of detail, thereby providing users a choice of stock answers. I certainly oppose the direction of the merge. The help desk templates listed in {{HDT}}, as shown through Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer, provide a limited list of templates addressing mostly high use issues, with dedicated templates whose names allow responders to easily locate which template might be responsive to a person's question. Because they are stand-alone, unlike HD, it also allows users to click edit, grab some of the model text and modify for their own purposes. Both issues would not be well served by a merge into HD which has about 50 entries to wade through to locate which sub-template addresses the issue. This template also pre-exists HD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about whether the the subtemplates are autonomous pages, it's about how they are accessed. Mechanically, that comes about by a person seeing the link for "How to answer" at the help desk's header → finding the section on answering → seeing there the display of {{HDT}} as well as the description of {{HD}} and then having to scroll through the display of the 50 templates in {{HD}}'s tl;dr shared (dependent) documentation to see which one to use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Vanish with Template:HD/vanish.
No need for two help desk templates about courtesy vanishing. Pppery (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geolinks templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

deprecated for quite some time and only two article-space transclusions remain (I merged about 50 of them with the article infoboxes). Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough articles to yet warrant a navbox for this band as navigation amongst those listed in not enhanced further by it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 05:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]