Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 27 September 29 >

September 28

[edit]

Template:Eiffel names

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a navbox of trivial distinction. Fails WP:NAVBOX because these names are only loosely related. -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babach, a "See also" section could be used to point to the List of names. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it can be done, but then we should do away with other templates as well, such as Mayors of Denver (Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, etc...), Ten companions of Muhammad, Sahaba, Shia Imams, Rulers of Morocco, U.S. Michigan Representatives, Senators (from Maryland, etc...), because they all have respective articles (mostly "List of..."). The connection there is, it seems to me, just as tenuous, since those are people from all walks of life that only had an office (in some cases elective) in common, or their relationship with Muhammad. If the template is indeed removed, then apparently 72 articles would have to be amended (a "See also" section entry added). I would suggest to improve the template instead - change the names from ALL CAPS so that it does not 'scream' at the reader, and add first name initials. Babach (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Extreme example of trivial navbox content. If and to the extent this content is actually noteworthy, it belongs in the Eiffel Tower article. The inclusion of these persons' names on the tower does not rise to the level of defining characteristic of the persons so listed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2015 (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).

COBD template set

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete all. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplication of existing template system Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Star systems within created by the same user with the same content organized slightly differently. Many of those templates are being deleted and are currently in WP:TFD/H. So this is also recreation of deleted material. These are clearly useless as being duplicative of existing content. We do not need a separate set of templates for every single type of distance unit (ie. currently light years and parsecs, but if the pattern holds, the user will be creating ones for Petametres and perhaps miles.) That does not help navigation, it only creates clutter. This version of the templates are incredibly dense with additional data that just makes it a big blob of text. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll roll those back later today. This is going to be very difficult to rollback, because they also changed {{nsx}}, which means the older version is unusable and it will take time to figure out what needs to be rolled back and what doesn't. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – useless templates with obscure names. There used to be also Template:Cobd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages), which I redirected to Template:Nearest star systems a few weeks ago exactly for being duplicative. --JorisvS (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2015 (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:University of California, Berkeley

[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).

The result of the discussion was already merged. It would appear that the Golden Bears template has been left alone. Primefac (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:University of California, Berkeley with Template:UC Berkeley Academics & 4 other templates.

These 5 tempaltes all duplicate the content of {{University of California, Berkeley}}. I propose that they all be merged to this one template.--Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nominator; not to mention it's the standard on here. Corkythehornetfan 04:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with caveat - I note, for the record, that someone has already implemented the proposed merge and redirect all of the templates listed above to the primary UC Berkeley navbox template as of October 7th. That said, it may be appropriate to maintain a separate California Golden Bears athletic navbox -- linking all of the Cal Bears sports-related articles to all of the UCB institutional, research and academic-related articles is probably unhelpful to our readers and may contribute to a navbox of unwieldy size. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2015 (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:Audition Online Regions

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, unlikely to be used again. (Level of detail is video game trivia) – czar 13:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 04:04, 28 September 2015 (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:TransAdelaide Stations

[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).

The result of the discussion was Relist to Oct 25. Primefac (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TransAdelaide is defunct, and separate navboxes for all of the lines exist. Two transclusions. Alakzi (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 04:05, 28 September 2015 (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:Rotten Tomatoes score/0102558

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. I'll merge the transcluded text into the article, as substituting would leave behind unnecessary template logic baggage. Also deprecating new uses of Template:Rotten Tomatoes score, as they only create error messages. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is just a complex replacement for article text. We've had these kinds of templates years ago. There's a number of these templates but I'm starting with this one. It's being used at Nothing_but_Trouble_(1991_film)#Reception with the text from here hidden to fill out the values that it has "9"% approval rating based "11" with an average of "2/10" and then a citation (with an error in it). To fix the citation, someone would need to find this thing and parse it like I did here (which still didn't fix it I think). Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit fixed the date problem. These sub-pages of Template:Rotten Tomatoes score are produced by Theo's Little Bot, task #22. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it was approved doesn't mean it's in line with policy. Generally, "Templates should not normally be used to store article text. Such content belongs in the article pages themselves." is a pretty clear guideline. While it's useful to have common text, it doesn't mean that it should be stored in this format, namely subpages that store the text. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 04:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after substituting into the article. I suppose this is an easy way of automatically maintaining changing Rotten Tomato scores in articles, but having this automated text in the article is a bad idea to begin with. If we want to have a critical reception section, it should be some actual editorial writing and not some bot adding in rotton tomato scores. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The bot should not be creating subtemplates, it should be directly editing the articles to replace the template there for the full version. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a Rotten Tomatoes database. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ricky81682, I am in general agreement with what's been said above, but am wondering why you chose to have a local discussion about one little sub-template, rather than have the discussion on the parent Template:Rotten Tomatoes score, which would cover all of its subtemplates. Noting that the previous discussion here resulted in keeping this system, but consensus can change, and in this case I think it should. Can we escalate the discussion to cover the parent template, and thus all substemplates such as this one? {{Rotten Tomatoes score}} is only used on about 64 pages, so the cleanup should be manageable. But this is about just one of the 64. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the discussion at Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes score but the overall template itself doesn't require deletion as it allows for a variety of outputs including citations to just some text not this version. It is the subtemplates that contain the whole text that I'm concerned with. The proper remedy would probably be a deletion request for the entire subcategory or an RFC as the template itself isn't the problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a closer look at the source code for {{Rotten Tomatoes score}}. I realize that it takes a more experienced or knowledgeable template editor to understand how it works. The bot gets all of the transclusions of
{{Rotten Tomatoes score|1=imdb_id|2=desired_output}} and then checks for the existence of the subpage [[Rotten Tomatoes score/imdb_id]] for each one. I understand that imdb_id is the Internet Movie Database ID, which the Rotten Tomatoes site supported in their API (application programmer interface) when this bot was written in 2013. The second parameter specifies which customized text to display in the article. Most editors were just using one of the "all_in_ones" "for the lazy folk among us" and using the canned text, but even the simple number for "tomatometer" is fetched from the subpage. Look at the source of Template:Rotten Tomatoes score/0102558 to see all the supported values of the second parameter there. Parameter {{{2}}} passed to {{Rotten Tomatoes score}} is then passed to {{Rotten Tomatoes score/0102558}} as parameter {{{1}}} to the subtemplate. This application simply doesn't work without a subtemplate for each and every use of {{Rotten Tomatoes score}}. Without the underlying subtemplate for the specified IMDB ID, all the main template does is put out an error message. When the bot sees that there is no subtemplate for the IMDB ID, it creates one. The problem is that all it's been doing for some time now is creating subpages with error messages. As I mentioned on the template's talk page, I believe the last successful bot update was on April 17, 2014. I just ran an experiment – I deleted Template:Rotten Tomatoes score/0492492, to see whether the bot would regenerate that page (check the page history and deletion log for the page). The bot did not recreate the page, but rather it wrote an error message to that file. So my conclusion is that the only thing still working about this system is the legacy subpages created before April 2014. The raison d'être for this system was to have a bot dynamically updating the Rotten Tomatoes data so that editors wouldn't have to do that manually every time the data was updated on the Rotten Tomatoes site. Now we might have stale data and not even realize it, because we assume the the bot is keeping it up to date, when it isn't. Messages have been left on the bot operator's talk page, but they haven't edited in two months and their participation has been minimal for the last several months. At this point, regardless of whether this type of application is desirable or not, we really have no choice but to shut it down, unless another programmer wants to take over the source code and start supporting it; i.e. fix it so that it successfully retrieves data from Rotten Tomatoes' site again. I'll probably spend as much time or more cleaning up the mess as the developer took to create the system. Some of these subpages will need to be salted as the bot keeps re-creating them (even though they aren't used in any articles) from its own internal database. We can't block the bot without blocking all of its other tasks. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2015 (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:Eponymous medical signs

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. There is only one place where it makes sense to transclude this - List of eponymously named medical signs - where (if fulfilling its intended role) it simply duplicates the content in a less accessible way; and the list is tagged for notability. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 04:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and this is a direct overuse of navboxes gathering up a large number into one template and dropping the whole mess into an article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In order to be useful, a navbox really has to be placed on every article that it links to; otherwise, its navigation-related qualities don't really apply. This isn't something that people would really want on the articles it links to, and as a result, it's incapable of sensibly serving its function as a navbox. --ais523 08:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
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:Pace web

[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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Oct 25. Primefac (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template a little under eight years ago. It creates a formatted link to an external web address for bus routes operated by Pace, a bus operator in the Chicago. The individual routes are not notable and don't have articles; the template is used on train station articles such as Joliet Union Station. This information is transient and probably not notable; Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The external link to the Metra site at the bottom of every article contains the same information. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 04:29, 28 September 2015 (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:Firefighting

[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).

The result of the discussion was merge. (Appears to have already been done.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Firefighting with Template:Wildland Firefighting.
The {{Wildland Firefighting}} template is a "part of a series" template that should be converted to a navbox. I am already in the process of doing that. While doing so, it seemed that it would also be appropriate to merge these two templates as there is a significant amount of overlap. There can easily be subsections made in the navbox for items specific to wildland but it seems that the two templates can and should be merged. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 04:30, 28 September 2015 (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).
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_28&oldid=687369883"