Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 21

< July 20	July 22 >

July 21

Template:Wikidata

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) 01:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is pointless since every article already includes a link to it's Wikidata page in the Tools section of the sidebar. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It appears that there are multiple language versions of this template, if I am reading the link correctly (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9175810) --Zfish118 (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge, I throw my "vote" more towards keeping this template; this would be useful to highlight significant content at the sister project for novice users who may not even be aware of Wikidata. However, it might also be merged into Template:Sister project links for greater consistency. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: To avoid a piece meal approach, other individual "sister project" templates ought to be included in this discussion. There should be a consensus regarding this category of templates in general. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which other templates? Are there more templates which are duplicated in the Tools section of every article? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if no other sister templates have such a "tools" link, it would be inconsistent for there not to be a template for Wikidata. Not every article has obviously related Wikidata; pointing out articles that are good examples can make new users more aware of the sister project. However, the piece meal approach I more specifically referred to would be merging the individual "Wikidata" template into a larger "Sister" project template, but not other individual project templates. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this for linking to a secondary interwiki set? (ie. If you have "Japanese (disambiguation)", you could link to translations of the term "Japanese" that are disambiguation pages, or disambiguation pages for the use of the character string "Japanese" on other wikipedias) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 202.160.16.155 (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (This template's been around for a few years...) [reply]
- Changing my vote to snow merge 202.160.16.155 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:Sister project links? Au contraire, I suggest to remove it from that template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2014 (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:CCC

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 rename. I will move it to CCEW, but feel free to move it elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template currently serves a very basic purpose; it merely creates a wikilink based on on the inputted county name. As its documentation calls for substitution, this should not break any existing pages. I hope to use this template name to create a new citation template; I would not oppose renaming the current CCC template as an alternative. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, highly simplistic not really needing the process entailed in using a template. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not opposed to renaming though if necessary. The template performs the same function as the football (soccer) templates {{fc}} and {{nft}}; similar to the pipe trick, it saves time when editing but can be used in situations where the pipe trick does not work. The template does not violate any of the template guidelines; simplicity is not a reason for deletion. BigDom (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, if renamed. I was uncertain if the template were even still in use, and do not begrudge its mere existence if it is of use to its author or others. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Zfish118 and BigDom: so what are the possible new names if it were to be renamed? Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out on @BigDom:'s talkpage, suggesting perhaps "CCEW" (County Cricket England-Wales), in part because such acronym would unlikely conflict with other templates in the future. Perhaps also an alphanumeric combination ("CCC101" or "CCCBD" for example), given the limited scope of the template's use. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2014 (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.