Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 25

< May 24	May 26 >

May 25

Template:Ramón Marrero Aristy Beltré

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).

The result of the discussion was deleted by RHaworth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frietjes (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ramón Marrero Aristy Beltré (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently created as a failed attempt to display "Ramón Marrero Aristy" on Rámon Marrero Aristy which I have now moved to the wanted title Ramón Marrero Aristy. The template was only used on this article where it serves no purpose and I removed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 14:38, 27 May 2016 (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).

Template:Markaz

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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted to June 19 — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template was created solely for the purpose of promoting a particular institution. I do not see any particular need for this template. It was created recently by a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shafinusri) who has now been blocked. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite what the nom says, it actually looks like a good and useful navigation template. There are a lot of non-linked pages which should be removed, but a nav box for a university isn't unheard of. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of these articles need to be taken to AfD. It appears this sock created a bit of a walled garden here. ~ Rob^Talk 06:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've looked into it more and made an AfD nom and a handful of CfD noms. There's certainly more to go. This is a mess. ~ Rob^Talk 06:40, 2 June 2016 (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).

Template:The Stable of Chicago-area Character Actors and Models Known as “Sedelmaier Regulars”

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 06:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Stable of Chicago-area Character Actors and Models Known as “Sedelmaier Regulars” (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely NN premise. The notion that there was a "stable" of actors known as "Sedelmaier Regulars" is not only completely unproven, there's no evidence for it on Google save for Wikipedia mirrors. The template itself is mostly of redlinks, and in the four that aren't, Sedelmaier isn't referenced in the articles. (As to that, the notion that he had a "stable" isn't mentioned in Sedelmaier's own article. The creation of a now-vanished SPA whose only Wikipedia activity was the creation of this template and its insertion into the four non-redlinked articles listed in it. Ravenswing 09:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2016 (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).

Template:Scite

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).

The result of the discussion was merge carefully. @Wugapodes: Please make a note at WP:TFD/H and ping me when you've made the necessary edits at {{Ussc}}. I can go through with a bot and convert the uses of {{Scite}} in articles. In particular, do not redirect {{Scite}} to {{Ussc}} until all tranclusions are gone, since we need to add the el=no parameter to all existing tranclusions. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 14:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ussc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Scite with Template:Ussc.
My proposed changes to {{ussc}} will make {{scite}} redundant, and I am seeking wider consensus before making those changes and merging the two. Merging ussc and scite was brought up here about 10 months ago and the previous discussion resulted in no consensus.

The main oppose reasons in the previous discussion were that ussc makes an external link, while scite does not. This is because scite is usually used in running prose where external links are discouraged (see WP:ELPOINTS). My proposed edits will add an option to suppress external links: el=no.

Scite is usually used in Supreme Court articles once, in the lead sentence, and even that usage is not standard (compare Roe v. Wade against Heffernan v. City of Paterson). It is burdensome to have to remember two separate templates, considering one, ussc, has far more features, and the other, scite, is only used once. Merging them would solve that problem.

Implementation of the merge can either be a wrapper (where scite simply invokes ussc with the el=no parameter), or current instances can be substituted and the template redirected with instructions updated to use el=no in the lead/running prose. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 04:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smuconlaw, MZMcBride, and Richwales: pinging participants in the previous discussion Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 04:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, I've been re-thinking the idea of using {{scite}} in the lead sentence of U.S. Supreme Court cases. I think it ultimately comes down to whether we want "U.S." or the full citation to be a link (e.g., to Case citation or to United States Reports or maybe in the future to the text of the case on Wikisource). If we want a link, we should probably stick with a template to make consistency easier. If we don't care about linking citations, maybe we should go back to plaintext in lead sentences. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely also an option. I think links are helpful, but they don't make or break the article. I actually already changed scite to link to the list of cases in that volume instead of the US Reports page (see Template:Scite/testcases for an example), and adding that to ussc is part of the proposal (but a less important part).Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw your edits to Template:scite. I made a few follow-up edits of my own.

Merging Template:scite to Template:ussc is fine with me. What to use in the lead sentence of U.S. Supreme Court articles is largely a separate question. Or at least I guess I can live with {{ussc|123|456|1986|el=no}} if I must.

In my opinion, Template:ussc seems a bit bloated, so I'm not really worried about adding yet another template parameter. That said, it would be a lot better to look at template parameters to remove from that template. We can reduce and simplify that template. Some of that info is derivable, such as the reporter name and volume number. In terms of output, we probably want more streamlined length options such as "long"/"full" vs. "short" and more streamlined formatting options such as "plaintext" (no links), "internal" and "external"/"source". --MZMcBride (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding consistency between articles, we have WP:SCOTUS/SG, but it needs additional feedback and discussion. I'm not sure I buy the burdensome argument. Is el=no really less burdensome than having a separate template? You're talking about the same number of characters ("scite" and "el=no" are both five). :-)
Would you also want to support el=yes? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely support el=yes, but decided to propose the least breaking changes first. I believe el=no is less burdensome than two templates because, especially for editors new to the topic (like me a few months ago), the two templates are confusing, and a number of editors probably don't even read the documentation explaining when to use one or the other. Further, having one template with a parameter means if someone adds ussc in prose and creates a link, instead of having to change the template and mess with parameters, we can just add el=no and move on. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I would support this, as I indicated in previous discussions on the issue on the template talk page and at "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion". — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The nominator and other editors in this discussion have provided good reasons for (1) why these should be merged and (2) how the merger can be conducted with little disruption. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2016 (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).