Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 24

[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) 23:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Social networking site, seems to be an WP:ELNO candidate. Corresponding article was deleted via A7. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:02, 24 April 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTG characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Izno (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2013 (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 deprecate and merge with core citation templates with |format= and |formatsize= or |filesize= or |urlsize= (see this discussion)  Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is misused, is little known, and is of little use. As used, (example: Sago Mine disaster) it produces bare urls, does not account for publisher, author, date, agency, accessdate and other significant citation details. It is not tracked or tagged for dead links, nor repaired for them by automated tools. It is not on the new editor training path, nor is it commonly used or suggested in discussion. The entirety of the functionality of this template is replaced by the citation parameters "|format=PDF" No other indication of PDF status beyond this is ever required. and |formatsize= (new, see below) (useful for those with limited or expensive internet connectivity). This template was last nominated for deletion in 2006 and kept. Well, it's not 2006 anymore. People know about PDF and know exactly what to do about it. Mediawiki even adds a cute little graphical indicator automatically wherever links to PDFs are used, completely obviating the need for this "user warning" template. Its sole functions are to change font and add a size parameter in that same font. Its use is finicky, incompatible with "=" in URLs, incompatible with Cite templates, and so on. Why it's used in over 9000 places is beyond comprehension. Does the bot designed to "keep size parameter up to date" run? If so, why doesn't it tag dead URLs as dead (see example article linked above). The way I see it, this is a big albatross, and it's time to cut it loose, and set an AWB task to replace all of its 9000 uses with standard citation or external link formulations. Lexein (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must object to this deletion comment, which seems to suffer from WP:Systemic bias as it does not take into account internet users from developing countries or where internet is restricted by download size. For example, in many Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs), as well as countries in Africa, fees for internet usage are based on download (and upload) size. Users from these places would think twice before trying to download a 19 MB .pdf file. Further, internet browsing is relatively new in some developing areas, where "PDFHell" is still a place to suffer. Please re-consider your comment with a larger world-view in mind. - tucoxn\talk 23:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hi. With MediaWiki putting a PDF icon in front of every PDF link that ends with ".pdf", I'd rather write "PDF" than "{{PDF}}". It is shorter. For the very little tweaks that my friends here suggest, well, an edit to citation template does it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all files match /.pdf$|.PDF$|.pdf?|.PDF?|.pdf#|.PDF#/ some use download redirection (so .php). The template wraps <span class="PDFlink"> to add the icon. — Dispenser 04:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (speedy): Its useful, takes very few space and maintenance, read all above and can't see any reason to change or even delete it?
Additionally: My many years of experience in Wikipedia have additionally shown that those who replace templates often did NOT done it carefully. Tagremover (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2013 (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.