Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 9

< May 8	May 10 >

May 9 edit

Template:US 23 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) 01:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US 23 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN. The only has 1 parent and two child routes, plus the alternate/business loop list. All of these items are sufficiently linked in the articles, making this navbox unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 22:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other routes have just as many parent and child routes, including the bannered route list, and they seem to be acceptable so far. ----DanTD (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We're discussing this one, and I don't think that this one is needed to bind together the 4 articles. The "bannered route" list isn't even applicable to US 123 or US 223, so we're binding together three articles through the links in the navbox. US 23 should already link to its "bannered route" list, and US 123 and US 223 already link to US 23 in the infobox and throughout the articles. Sorry, we don't need this. Imzadi 1979 → 23:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't US 123 and 223 have bannered route lists of their own? Or maybe I'm confusing it with some other road. I really don't see why we can't integrate the bannered routes of the child routes into the navboxes. ----DanTD (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - US 223 has 1, which is a subsection of the article. US 123 had one, which also would end up a subsection of its article. Therefore there's no "bannered routes of the child routes" articles to integrate. Imzadi 1979 → 00:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ipsign (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not enough related articles to need a navbox. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 08:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 19#Interstate navboxes with three links, navboxes with three links were determined to be useful. Dough 48 72 02:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Consensus can change, so a TfD from 2009 may or may not reflect current opinion on the matter. Imzadi 1979 → 02:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think this navbox is useful. For example, if someone is at the US 223 article they have the choice to navigate to the US 23 or US 123 article through this template. Dough 48 72 02:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The analogy with the Interstate navboxes is weak because the Interstate navbox links are a trio of route articles, while in this navbox one of the three links is to a list, one that could probably be folded into the main article. V C 02:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Interstate navboxes linked to three articles, the parent and 2 3dis, much like this one (plus the bannered route list). Dough 48 72 02:27, 13 May 2012 (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:Interp 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to the simple inclusion of two brackets. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge with {{brackets}} (which is even less useful). Frietjes (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template is not about "how to insert square brackets", it is about a concept of interpolation. At some point later somebody may decide to render it differently (for example, original text may be added as a parameter and displayed as a tooltip); as rendering and content should be separated - having this template (as a concept, and not as a mere tool to insert brackets) is a good thing. Ipsign (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After 5½ years, these concepts have not been implemented and there are only 174 transclusions. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 08:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concept has been implemented, it is tooltips (specific implementation) which were not implemented. If you're a C programmer, the following analogy would be useful: using CreateFile() directly is usually a bad idea even if your program is currently intended to be Windows-only; using neutral wrapper which corresponds to needs of your program (opposed to capabilities of OS) is a much better idea in 99.9% of the cases. And BTW, 174 transclusions is much more than that of most of the templates discussed on this page. Ipsign (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—the raw coding is much simpler to just add two brackets. Imzadi 1979 → 08:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think Ipsign has a point here. While the present markup is rather straightforward, it does impart semantic meaning to our articles which brackets don't. That's the same rationale behind {{em}}. We should probably wrap this in a semantically-meaningful span to make it clearer what the purpose it. {{Brackets}}, by contrast, is purely presentational, and would probably be better getting deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If classes and/or styling is added, then it should not be used in citation template fields, as the markup will be included; see {{smallcaps}}. We have kept the Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 template quite clean of extraneous markup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for general use in quotations outside of citation templates, as in various current transclusions I've checked, this is appropriate enough. We really should endeavour not to add anything except for preformatted code to quotations so as not to corrupt them: that's also the rationale behind using {{sic}} when [sic] really suffices. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This makes the most sense. Druid816 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2012 (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:Cite conference/citation 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) 01:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite conference/citation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of {{cite conference}} using different formatting for title: quotes v. italics. If there is an issue, then discuss it on the talk page and work out the formatting. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen transclusions, all by the author, and all apparently in a single session. I think it's fair to say that this hasn't taken off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2012 (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:Schools in District 2 Shiraz Education Organization 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) 01:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Schools in District 2 Shiraz Education Organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

sea of red links. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2012 (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:SJA (series 1) 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) 01:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SJA (series 1) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SJA (series 2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SJA (series 3) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SJA (series 4) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SJA (series 5) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to template:The Sarah Jane Adventures serials. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2012 (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:Alabama Vipers roster navbox 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) 01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alabama Vipers roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Team has folded, so a current roster template is no longer useful. Jenks24 (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2012 (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:AKNatlForests 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) 01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only two links and one transclusion. Better handled by a see also, IMO. Jenks24 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough related articles to need a navbox. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 08:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—there aren't enough articles. Imzadi 1979 → 08:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's also duplicated by Template:Protected Areas of Alaska.RadioKAOS (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2012 (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.