Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 1

< June 30	July 2 >

July 1 edit

Template:ALeague WPD 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; deleted by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ALeague WPD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another redundant copy of {{ALeague WSW}}, along with already listed {{ALeague WS}} (see this discussion). timsdad ^(talk) 00:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. timsdad ^(talk) 00:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. What purpose does the original template serve, anyway? Mattythewhite (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Most of the templates in Category:A-League team shortcut templates are used throughout the A-League articles to avoid long and convoluted lines of code as well as redirecting. --timsdad ^(talk) 23:02, 4 July 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:HighBeam 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 merge with {{subscription required}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is shouting-out HighBeam in articles, often repeatedly. This is highly promotional and unwarranted. Most readers will not have an account to access the link, anyway, as a subscription is required. The highbeam url itself serves to indicate that the source is available there. This should be deleted and usages simply replaced with {{subscription required}}. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the creator of this template, I can assure the nominator that it is not promotional. Indeed, as its documentation says, it is part of the HighBeam Research project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, by it's own wording, it is calling-out HighBeam; that is inherently promotional. This amounts to an advert inserted in the references of articles. People link Google books, but few will tolerate calling them out. {{subscription required}} will suffice. nb: worse-yet is the talk of injecting this into citation templates themselves. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You appear to be using "promotional" (and for that matter, "advert") in a sense unfamiliar to me an my dictionary; but in any case the template accords with the guidance at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations and if it is deleted such links are likely to be added manually. Proposed changes to that guidance should be discussed on that page's talk page, not brought about by deleting a template which complies with it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is promotional in that it is spamming the name in article link around. That "guidance" has no status whatsoever; it's just a page, might as well be an essay. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see it's needed - HighBeam get increased incoming links as their end of the bargain, maybe some new subscriptions as a result.
If I source information from an actual paper book, I don't feel obliged to credit the library or the bookshop that I borrowed or bought it from. pablo 13:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "need" is to standardise (for convenience, and ease of updating attributions which were previously being added manually, and with a variety of minor an unnecessary variances). As noted above, your beef seems to be with the guidance, not the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template provides valuable information to those readers with HighBeam access: If I see "subscription required", I'll probably assume that I won't be able to access the link, but if I see "via HighBeam", then I know that I can. I would delink HighBeam Research though, as it's overlinking that distracts from the link to the source, and I would edit it down to just "via HighBeam", so it's less repetitive when used on many links in an article. Toohool (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The words "subscription required" are mandated by the guidance at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just meant to remove the word "Research", not to remove "subscription required". Toohool (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacement with {{subscription required}}. or, I suppose, add a second parameter to that template so that it can be called as {{subscription required|HighBeam}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons expressed by Andy Mabbett. It provides a quicker way to comply with the idea behind WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. A rewording of the template can always discussed--for example, I approve of the recent edit that eliminated the duplicate mention of both HighBeam Research and WP:HighBeam --but eliminating this template is not helpful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is convenient. Highbeam is being helpful to Wikipedia by providing access, and I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that. I note that a search on "YouTube" gives 75,362 results and a search on "Google" gives 269,597 results. Presumably most of these mentions implicitly suggest that YouTube or Google are useful repositories. Are they ads? Even if they were, is advertising evil? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My preferred solution would be to add a "source" parameter to {{subscription required}}, as Frietjes suggests. That would seem to meet the use cases suggested by those supporting the template, while addressing the concerns of its detractors. That would obviate the need for a standalone template, though maybe it could be kept as a sub-template if Andy think that's be useful. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support this too, as it would provide a standardized way to cite other similar archive sites like ProQuest and NewsBank. Toohool (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could someone please provide an illustration of how the proposed added parameter would change the way the template would display in the footnotes? --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Andy Mabbett. I'd probably be equally happy with a parameter added to {{subscription required}} though, as Frietjes suggests. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete creep, bloat, superfulous. etc. PumpkinSky talk 21:41, 7 July 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:Wikilinks added 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) 23:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikilinks added (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikilink added (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

according to MOS Linking, we are supposed to avoid linking words within direct quotes. normally we tag section with <sup>...</sup> tags when there is a problem should be fixed. this, however, seems to say that there is no problem? it is visually disruptive, and I think we should just go with the MOS linking guidelines here and avoid linking within quotes. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree it's visually disruptive, but maybe the solution is to make it not a superscript but just regular text. I think it is useful sometimes to wikilink within quotes when an unfamiliar concept or a concept that we otherwise want to wikilink to appears within the quotes but not elsewhere in the article. Therefore, perhaps it is the MOS that needs to change. Leucosticte (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I agree that the Manual of Style needs adjustments. Newt Gingrich has often been quoted as saying Obama uses Saul Alinsky tactics, while Obama once was quoted calling Republican policies social darwinism, and both quotes need links to make clear what the person is talking about. There are likely numerous other examples. I think, however, that it's rather obvious that Wikipedia added the wikilinks and can't think of any reason we'd need to tell anyone that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Manual of Style says that "Items within quotations should not generally be linked". The "generally" part is what is confusing and unclear to me. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Links in quotes to address this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is disruptive and against MOS. If you do wikilink, well, maybe, but don't shout about it. There's also a WP:SELFREF concern. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see the point of disrupting readers in this way. On extremely rare occasions, square-bracketed explanation could be added after a quotation if a link within it was within it in the first place (presumably from an online source) ... such as we do for highlighted ("[italics added]"). "Generally" was allowed into the guideline to provide a little flexibility in linking within quotations, given that they can carry significant disadvantages. Tony (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to ever point out that Wikilinks were added. Doesn't the fact that some of the text is blue give enough of a sign? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. Internal editorialising of this sort should be used as seldom as possible. What should really happen is that editors should be more firmly trouted for wikifying direct quotations against better sense. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:08, 5 July 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:AMEL rail start 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) 23:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AMEL rail start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused custom {{S-rail}} header, replaceable by standard templates {{S-start}} and {{S-rail|title=Athens Metro}}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:57, 1 July 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:ISAP rail start 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) 23:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISAP rail start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused custom {{S-rail}} header, replaceable by standard templates {{S-start}} and {{S-rail|title=ISAP}}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:57, 1 July 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:TRAINOSE rail start 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) 23:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TRAINOSE rail start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused custom {{S-rail}} header, replaceable by standard templates {{S-start}} and {{S-rail|title=TrainOSE}}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:57, 1 July 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:Proastiakos rail start 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) 23:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Proastiakos rail start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused custom {{S-rail}} header, replaceable by standard templates {{S-start}} and {{S-rail|title=Proastiakos}}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:57, 1 July 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:UEFA futsal under-21 teams 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) 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UEFA futsal under-21 teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only used on one article, where it is not needed. has not one single bluelink and wont likely become one Koppapa (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, redundant template. Giant Snowman 11:17, 8 July 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:UEFA Futsal U-21 Championship 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) 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UEFA Futsal U-21 Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not needed. only one edition so far. no section on uefa website, probably abolished. template only has one redlink and is used only on one article Koppapa (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A navbox that navigates nowhere is of no value. Reso lute 19:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, redundant template. Giant Snowman 11:18, 8 July 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.