Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 13

< November 12	November 14 >

November 13

Template:Warn, 2nd nomination

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I propose substitute, then redirect. Template is redundant to Template:Uw-vandalism1. The documentation is outdated and doesn't use a subpage, the template isn't integrated into any warning scheme, isn't documented at WP:UTM, and, unlike the new UW templates, doesn't benefit from bot replacement of transclusions with substitutions. The argument at the first nomination was that it's part of the archaic "TestTemplates" scheme, and an ancient poll indicated these should be kept. This template, howevere, bears none of the marks of the typical TestTempales. It's not numbered, it's doesn't have the uniform documentation (except the documentation template, which you can see provides incorrect information about the use of this particular template), and it lacks a descriptive title. Regardless, because the TestTemplates scheme has not been well preserved, it's really impossible to tell now what's a TestTemplate, and what's simply an old user warning template, which has led to the bizarre practice of deleting nearly all redundant templates listed at TfD except old user warning templates (and, mind you, we delete redundant new user warning templates just fine). The "consensus" to keep TestTemplates is now over three years old, anyway. So, without taking on the larger issue of the TestTemplates now, what say us on this particular template? Bsherr (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it should be integrated with the current system as a "level 0" template, and rewritten. As it appears that {{test}} is a "level 0" template with modern documentation. A friendly message with no warning level. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those who wish to use {{uw-jargon}} are free to do so; some of us find names like {{warn}} easier to remember, others find this wording preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the name would be preserved as a redirect. If there is something preferable about this wording, it would be better if we could have a discussion to integrate it into the uw template. --Bsherr (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where is it written that you and I have to use the same wording to every vandal? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say it was. But if you have two templates that do the same thing, it's very likely that they can be combined to produce one template that does that thing better. Multiple templates for a single purpose defers or prevents the conversation to determine the best practice. I've identified above the weaknesses of this template compared to the UW template. Could you tell me what attributes of this template are superior to the UW template? --Bsherr (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2010 (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) 20:36, 13 November 2010 (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.

In language

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:In Spanish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates with minimal code, not worth maintaining. Nothing transcludes them. Auntof6 (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose I propose that these be turned into interlanguage link templates that can be used in article text, to link to other language wikipedias (or other WMF projects, with a "project" switch). 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note there is {{Fril}}. Not sure that's a good example though. Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Huh what?
1. Minimal code? {{Persondata}} has zero code, try getting that deleted....
2. Both templates are in use.
3. Maintenance? They both take less than one edit per year to maintain. In fact the nom has made more edits for this tfd than these templates have had combined, in 4 and 5 years!
Keep Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I could swear I looked and didn't see anything using them, but now I see quite a few uses of the Spanish one (only one for the French one). I don't think these simplify anything, which, to me, is the main reason for this kind of template. Thanks for your feedback -- I figured since you had moved one a few months ago, you might have some input. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{InFrench}}. Only one transclusion. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any advantage to these templates? They don't do much besides printing the language icon next to the subsequent parameter. {{In Spanish|url=site|name=blah}} vs. {{es icon}} [http://site blah]? Doesn't {{cite web}} have a language argument? Category:Language external link templates is rather barren; the other templates in that cat are not for links in foreign languages, but for linguistics web sites. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2010 (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) 20:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute. I find myself agreeing with Tijfo098 on this. I don't think the template provides much gain in efficiency or standardization over the wikicode. I'd propose substituting. However, this template contravenes the guidelines at WP:NONENGEL, which sensibly provides that the language icon appear after the link. So, first, fix the template. Then substitute. --Bsherr (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sample rebuild: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:X5&oldid=398041325 ... 76.66.194.212 (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nice, I think, but the MOS at WP:Linking does not provide for project icons to be used. Until it does, they shouldn't be used. And then we're back to a template that doesn't provide any efficiency or consistency over the wikimarkup. --Bsherr (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I created the InFrench template, it was to be used under external links contents for web pages that were in French, especially when the subject of the article had some relation to France or where a non-English source was not worthy. Obviously my knowledge of code four/five years ago was not as to standard as it probably is now, so I suggest the template should at least be improved. KiloT 22:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have specific ideas for improvement, or are you just soliciting improvements? --Bsherr (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2010 (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:LiguillaBracket

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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is not in use by any article. It is a copy of the Template:8TeamBracket-2Leg. MicroX (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant, only difference seems to be that this one has a hyphen in "quarter-finals" and "semi-finals". I think we can manage without it. ~ mazca ^talk 11:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. —Half Price 17:57, 14 November 2010 (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:List of selected essays by J. M. G. Le Clézio/to do

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) 03:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of selected essays by J. M. G. Le Clézio/to do (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for this as a template. Also, it is not used and List of selected essays by J. M. G. Le Clézio was moved on 14 March 2010. See link.Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2010 (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:DieselBoy

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) 03:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant. 86.180.255.89 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 22:19, 14 November 2010 (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.