Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 9

[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. — TKD::{talk} 09:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Movie-Tome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little-used template for a user-edited database of minimum importance. Last nominated in 2006 and received only one response. Many of the current links are broken, and the website has become difficult to access in order to correct linked pages. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (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.
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 keep of 9:42 10 March was not explained much so was given less weight. The "Don't keep in its current form" seemed like it had been addressed. An argument was made that this increases consistency, but it looks like most of the rest of the comments viewed the template as redundant. delldot ∇. 18:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

BBC is one of the most cited news sources in our articles, however, I see no justification for creating citation templates for individual news providers. Also, use of this template would encourage omitting many fields of information that are present in other citation templates (author, date) . meco (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A consistent approach to citations of online versions of news reports might well be helpful. To the extent that partially pre-filled templates would encourage editors to complete the remaining fields, I would support them. As currently documented, however, the Bbcnews template doesn't do that. - Pointillist (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go back one revision to see the {{cite news}}-based one. There are quirks with the way that {{cite news}} displays URLs, and {{cite web}} is practically functionally equivalent anyway, so I just switched the parent. FWIW not all articles that can be linked from this template are "news"; much of the BBC website is catered for. I wouldn't object to a name change but don't feel strongly either way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really get the difference between the two: {{cite news}} has extra agency=, curly=, id= (e.g. ISSN) and page= parameters ...maybe agency would be useful for BBC News? The majority of the material in most "news" sources is commentary rather than hard news anyway, so the lines are pretty blurred. If there are more provider-specific templates in future, it would be smart to have them all inherit from the same parent, which would probably have to be {{cite news}}, wouldn't it? - Pointillist (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, the only reason I switched from {{cite news}} is that I wanted a rapid proof-of-concept - {[tl|cite news}} handles URLs a little differently, and I couldn't quickly get the output format right, so I swapped to a template I was a little more familiar with. I'd be happy to switch back . Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "redundant to a better-designed template". While the current template is an improvement over the "dumbed-down" version, as Pointillist called it, this template is ultimately just a codified version of {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}—both of which have more functionality—that provides only a negligible benefit in terms of time saved (it saves editors from having to complete just one field (work = [[BBC News]]) when formatting a reference). –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template currently supports every element of {{cite web}}; it also supports a feature that {{cite web}} doesn't, unnamed parameters (for the URL and title). I'm not sure that the criterion in question applies if the template is actually a subclass of the "better designed template", as this would seem to suggest that that hundreds of {{ambox}} subclasses are redundant. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I should have been clearer on that point. While this template does indeed support that feature, I am against having citation templates that do not require a title (for news sources) and a URL (for web sources). To repeat what Pointillist said above, I don't think that we should do anything to encourage web citations that lack basic information like date, accessdate, title, and URL. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both the URL and (at least a placeholder) title are mandatory in the template. The rest are no less encouraged than in {{cite web}}, and the various bots / tools which can be used to enhance existing {{cite web}}s could be trivially adapted to also work with this template. It may be that it would be better if every reference used {{cite web}}, but I feel that halfway-houses which at least make it trivial to clean up bare URLs are a good idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • While the template does have parameters for title and URL, they are not mandatory in the sense that the template will produce a valid-looking output even if a unique title and URL are not provided. Currently the title placeholder is "News report on {{PAGENAME}}" and the default URL points to the general BBC News website, neither of which is good citation practice (I'd rather see bare URLs in citations than "News report on PAGENAME" with a link to the the home pages of a news website). I realize that users are supposed to replace these defaults with actual titles and URLs, but then we come back to the point that it's just as easy to use {{cite news}} instead of this template.
            While bots could work with this template, I see no advantage to having bots do this instead of simply using {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand into other sources--this is a step in the direction of rationalism and consistency., 09:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment when I cite a source, I will use a template I know about, which will be a more general one, & I would probably continue to do so. I think using more specific ones for each major source would just make things more difficult. DGG (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm inclined to agree that we don't need, and shouldn't have, unique citation templates for specific websites. The existing citation templates (like {{Cite web}}) do a good enough job as it is. Robofish (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist nomination. __meco (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2009 (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.
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 speedy deleted (CSD G10) by User:Anthony Appleyard. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to have only been created as a petty attack towards something the user dislikes, pointless. Not terribly civil. DreamHaze (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G10. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for Speedy Deletion, thanks--I wasn't sure if it qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamHaze (talkcontribs) 13:38, 9 March 2009 (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.
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 speedy deleted as G8.. SoWhy 09:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite pmid/19240221 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template appears to be simply a redirect to a non-existent page Template:Cite doi/10.1073.2Fpnas.0812570106 --Mysidia (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2009 (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.
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. — TKD::{talk} 10:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ood television stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is not necessary; the Ood are not significant enough in the Doctor Who universe, and a big template is overkill for a handful of appearances that are already easily acceessible. (Suggest a category instead, if really needed.) Ckatzchatspy 05:24, 9 March 2009 (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.