Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 26 June 28 >

June 27 edit

Template:Iterate 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) 22:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template isn't being used, and there is no need for it now that we have Lua enabled. Although the template itself is well-designed, it would be much more efficient to use internal Lua functions for anything I can think of, and keeping it around might encourage bad coding practices. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't remember why exactly I wrote it, but yeah, nuke it, now that we have a sane way to script things. Amalthea 06:15, 28 June 2013 (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:Infobox broadcast small 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) 02:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox broadcast small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of {{Infobox broadcast}}. Was single use, on Radio Kolor, now orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment probably one of those remnants from before the implementation of parserfunctions -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2013 (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:Infobox play-chronological 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) 00:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox play-chronological (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of {{Infobox play}}.Only 49 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 27 June 2013 (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:Infobox dot-com company 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. It appears the redundancy issue could be resolved through the use of modules (as suggested by Andy and Chris and others), but that can be worked out elsewhere. Perhaps a good first step would be to create the requisite modules, and rewrite this template as a frontend for {{infobox company}}, then re-examine the situation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox dot-com company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox company}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Fulfills a role in a very large and distinct category that couldn't otherwise be handily accomplished with infobox company. Parameter |Alexa =, for example. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-purposifying works well for Swiss Army Knifes, not as well for infoboxes. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With a lot of dot-com companies emerging, this template provides handy domain specific parameters such as alexa, website type etc. tausif(talk) 09:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just two parameters, or are there others? We don't fork major templates for the sake of a handful of parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that it allows to have the functionalities of {{Infobox company}} and of {{Infobox website}} together. Adding a large number of parameters such as ip, ipv6, programming language and such to the general {{Infobox company}} that would have no use except for, precisely, "dot com" companies would be of little purpose and negatively affect usability for other uses of this template. Cenarium (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that is the point of the template, then a more sensible solution would be to enable the use of {{Infobox website}} as a module within {{Infobox company}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found this template useful and couldn't find another template that would have been suitable for the page I was editing. What would happen to existing pages if the template is in use and gets deleted? JamminBen (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All instances would be replaced with {{Infobox company}} before the nominated template is deleted. We do such replacements all the time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is very useful. Besides, it segregrates non-dotcom and dotcom companies.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way useful? How does it segregate non-dotcom and dotcom companies (given that the latter may use {{Infobox company}}), and how is that of benefit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. There major differences between a firm and a business only done via Internet. Please, keep the template. It is good to have a separate template.--Warrior68 (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a fork. Change code to mirror {{Infobox company}}, allow extra parameters, don't delete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but add all parameters to {{Infobox company}}. The term 'dot-com company' is outdated. By extension, we would also need to have {{Infobox app-company}}, for those that only build applications. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but ensure it mirrors Infobox Company completely, with extra specific parameters. My issue with merging is that non-internet-specific companies will end up having the internet-specific parameters entered; we don't need to know the Alexa Rank of some minor company's front-end website, but it will no doubt be added. I agree that "dot-com" is outdated as a term, but it's not seen by readers, only editors, and we put up with enough weird workarounds and strange terms that it's not out of the ordinary.  drewmunn  talk  11:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a fork per Magioladitis. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as a frontend for {{infobox company}}, then reconsider if the frontend is very minimal. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but merge applicable paramaters to {{Infobox company}} per FunkyCanute. Signalizing (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is historically important for the history of the internet. Macduff (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite per Frietjes. Pigsonthewing's module idea sounds interesting, too. -PC-XT+ 23:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've found this template useful in an article I wrote: kikin. I would say keep. But if there is template better suited to that article (kikin), please do let me know on my talk page! Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 08:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very helpful template. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A huge amount of me-tooism here, mostly with no actual supportive arguments at all. "Dot-com companies" are nothing more than a weird blip in the history of the 21st Century, as international industry abandoned the idea of associating a business or service with a particular pile of bricks. The extra parameters this adds are mostly trivia relating to the website; if the website and the company are both important enough to warrant infoboxes, just stick an {{infobox website}} on the page as well. I'll do the work to module-ise the latter when I get the chance, though it needn't affect the outcome here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chris, what would you recommend for a technology company like kikin Inc.? I'm using this template for that article right now; but if you know one that'd be more well-suited to companies like it (ie. startups), please do let me know. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 08:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge parameters. 37.188.122.55 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any needed parameters. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template is very useful and visible indeed. It is used on popular Wikipedia pages. Specially on popular "dot com companies". Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2013 (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:Abercrombie & Fitch brand 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) 00:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abercrombie & Fitch brand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox brand}} (and {{Infobox company}} for the parent page). Only five transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 27 June 2013 (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:Infobox Unternehmen 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 rewrite as a frontend Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Unternehmen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox company}}. 91 transclusions. Per past discussions, other-language templates should not appear in English-Wikipedia articles. If kept, should be refactored so that it is 'Subst:' on use, and renders an instance of the English-language infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • rewrite as wrapper that can be substituted as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2013 (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:Infobox hostel 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 redirect, appears to be a fork. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox hostel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox hotel}}. Only three tranclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 27 June 2013 (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:Infobox trade unionist 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) 02:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox trade unionist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Only three transclusions. Undocumented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 27 June 2013 (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:Infobox professional association 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:30, 10 July 2013 (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:Infobox National Sport Association of the Deaf 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) 00:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox National Sport Association of the Deaf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox organisation}}. Was single-use, on Deutscher Gehörlosen-Sportverband, now orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 27 June 2013 (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:2008 NPF standings 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) 00:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 NPF standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

out of date and no article about the 2008 season. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2013 (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:Softballbox7 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) 22:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Softballbox7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Softball Boxscore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2013 (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:Infobox water transit 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 ferry route into water transit. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox water transit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox ferry route}}. 37 transactions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • looks like 'water transit' is more generic and older, so merge 'ferry route' into that template instead. Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either way suits me. The 'ferry infobox has 45 transclusions. A redirect from the deleted template will assist future editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Frietjes -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge as above. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (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:Infobox tractor 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:14, 10 July 2013 (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:Infobox London bus route 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:38, 10 July 2013 (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:Infobox UK bus route 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) 02:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK bus route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox bus line}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no need for all these infoboxes that do the same thing. --Rschen7754 16:47, 27 June 2013 (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:Infobox Monterrey metro 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 relisting on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:11, 10 July 2013 (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:Infobox NS-station 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 after replacement/substitution (be sure to clean up the location map code). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NS-station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. 444 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no need for all these infoboxes that do the same thing. --Rschen7754 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already a wrapper - It clearly states that "This is a customized wrapper for Infobox station, meant for railway stations in the Netherlands." This template is already just a front end for the standard infobox and can be sustituted. Did any of you look at this? Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of Infobox station. It may be a wrapper, but I see no reason for a specialised template in this situation. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having compared the two, I think Infobox NS-station differs from Infobox station mainly by layout, with the station name in a blue bar, and few specific Dutch features. Nice for Dutch users like me. In the end, I guess Infobox NS-station doesn't hurt a fly, so I wonder why people want to have it removed so badly. It's not the only "localized" version of a template, there are so many of them. Why is this a problem with stations? PPP (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference. What you see is the Template:Infobox station. This is currently just a front end which converts the previous parameters. There should be absolutely no change if the substitution is done properly. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2013 (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:Infobox NI station 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:57, 10 July 2013 (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:Infobox Ireland station 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:57, 10 July 2013 (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:Infobox Oslo Tramway station 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, no serious arguments for keeping it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Oslo Tramway station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. Only 49 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 27 June 2013 (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:Infobox Austria station 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 after replacement. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Austria station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. Only 32 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no need for all these infoboxes that do the same thing. --Rschen7754 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to standard Infobox station. An obvious clone with the main parameters having identical names and the addition of national presets. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the four reasons for deletion apply. Infobox station is not a better-designed template. The infobox created by this template is narrower and therefore takes up less horizontal space on the page than the one created by Infobox station, which displays a wider than standard image. This template also gives more prominence to the station's name than Infobox station, lacks the distracting coloured lines, and offers the option of two different maps. It is therefore a better-designed template, and unlike Infobox station it is also not edit protected and is therefore easier to edit - a major advantage. Like a number of other station templates, it is precisely tailored to a particular country, in this case Austria. Railway stations play a different, more prominent, role in Austria from the role they play in many other countries for which Infobox station is used. Many of the parameters in this template are not present in infobox station, and vice versa. The parameters not included in this template are not appropriate to English Wikipedia articles about Austria. If the parameters in this template that are not included in Infobox station were added to that template (over the substantial obstacle of edit protection) they would only make that template more complex and clunkier than it already is. If the number of transclusions is relevant, the present number is not trivial, and articles about railway stations in Austria are a work in progress - several new articles have been created recently, and there are many more in German Wikipedia that will be translated in due course. Bahnfrend (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rationale for deletion is redundancy, not "better design". If you don't like the design of {{Infobox station}}, propose changes on its talk page, and see whether the community agrees with you. We don't fork templates for aesthetic reasons (nor to bypass protection); and consistency of design aids both our fellow editors and our readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, rationale 2 reads: "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" As I have indicated above, Infobox station is not a better designed template, and its shortcomings are more than just aesthetic. I would have no objection to the various central European and Norwegian infoboxes being merged into one European infobox. But that's not what's being proposed; what is proposed is that they all be deleted and replaced by an infobox that is inferior to all of them and also unsuited to Central Europe. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those for reasons are examples; not an exhaustive list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only reason you've given is "redundant". As I've indicated, the various infoboxes you've nominated are not redundant. User:Mackensen, who developed Infobox station, is already developing an amalgamation of the infoboxes you have nominated. See User:Mackensen/Infobox railway station, and, for examples of how it would work, see User:Mackensen/stations. I repeat that I have no issue with any such amalgamation. My only other comment on User:Mackensen's proposal is that I would name the amalgamated template Infobox Europe station. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cheaper than fighting over what should be in one template given there are 2 with separate consensuses.--Elvey (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • People would be better devoting their energies to improving the infoboxes that see thousands of uses on our articles than starting and preserving micro-forks to serve their own personal sense of aesthetics. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of Infobox station. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after it is replaced because the template is redundant to Template:Infobox station. Martin Morin (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template:Infobox station does not have many of the parameters in Template:Infobox Austria station e.g. municipality, district, state, distance, architect, locale (which should be location anyway), iata, s-bahn, u-bahn, tram, bus and ship. We shouldn't be in the game of changing templates and losing significant quantities of information, some of which is country-specific. Bermicourt (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as a frontend for {{infobox station}}. if the frontend is very weak (just passing through parameters), then reconsider deletion (yes, I can cut-and-paste comments just like everyone else). Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC) delete, upon closer inspection, this template is entirely redundant to {{infobox station}}, and the situation is really no different than {{infobox Slovenia station}} and {{infobox Slovakia station}}. all the needed parameters are in {{infobox station}}, so no information will be lost be the conversion. this will also fix the cumbersome method for specifying the location map, which requires passing the coordinates twice. the {{infobox station}} template handles this nicely by using the coordinates for both the coordinates display and the location map. Frietjes (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Delete per Frietjes -PC-XT+ 23:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC) The main reason I wanted the rewrite is that I found the maps confusing. It sounds like it has different options for map display than infobox station, but I prefer the latter. I would not use this template. I do not understand enough about it to say delete, so I'm retracting my !vote, though I believe Frietjes understands it much better. I may look at it again, and change my mind if there is time. I do not want to merge options that would introduce similar confusion, and I'm not saying keep. -PC-XT+ 02:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Um, this is basically the same as the Italy one. I don't remember where I found the confusion. Anyway, I revised my !vote in time. -PC-XT+ 06:59, 9 July 2013 (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:Infobox Italy station 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 after replacement. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Italy station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. 274 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no need for all these infoboxes that do the same thing. --Rschen7754 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to standard Infobox station. An obvious clone with the main parameters having identical names and the addition of national presets. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my comments above about Infobox Austria station apply equally to this one, except that this one already has a lot more transclusions. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of Infobox station. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after it is replaced because the template is redundant to Template:Infobox station. Martin Morin (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need to beware of making sweeping assumptions that all templates with "station" in the name do exactly the same thing and look at the templates in detail. "Infobox station" does not have many of the parameters in this template, so we risk losing important information, some of which is country-specific. Bermicourt (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as a frontend for {{infobox station}}. if the frontend is very weak (just passing through parameters), then reconsider deletion (yes, I can cut-and-paste comments just like everyone else). Frietjes (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC) delete, upon closer inspection, this template is entirely redundant to {{infobox station}}, and the situation is really no different than {{infobox Slovenia station}} and {{infobox Slovakia station}}. all the needed parameters are in {{infobox station}}, so no information will be lost be the conversion. this will also fix the cumbersome method for specifying the location map, which requires passing the coordinates twice. the {{infobox station}} template handles this nicely by using the coordinates for both the coordinates display and the location map. Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Delete per Frietjes -PC-XT+ 23:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I assume the "national presets" mentioned above can be "substituted" in the relevant transclusions. -PC-XT+ 03:34, 9 July 2013 (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:Infobox Norwegian station 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 after replacement. As indicated below, it appears this is no different from {{Infobox Slovakia station}} and {{Infobox Slovenia station}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Norwegian station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. 415 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no need for all these infoboxes that do the same thing. --Rschen7754 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my comments above about Infobox Austria station apply equally to this one, except that this one already has a lot more transclusions, and doesn't (yet) have two maps capability. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of Infobox station. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need to beware of making sweeping assumptions that all templates with "station" in the name do exactly the same thing and look at the templates in detail. "Infobox station" does not have many of the parameters in this template, so we risk losing important information, some of which is country-specific. Bermicourt (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as a frontend for {{infobox station}}. if the frontend is very weak (just passing through parameters), then reconsider deletion (yes, I can cut-and-paste comments just like everyone else). Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC) delete, after further inspection of the template, the only unique features of this template are handled by {{Oslo T-bane icon}}. this is really no different from the {{infobox Slovenia station}} and {{infobox Slovakia station}} discussion below. I don't get the "two maps" comment above, since this template does not currently have any map features. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Delete per Frietjes -PC-XT+ 23:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC) It seems easy to replace, unless I'm doing something wrong. -PC-XT+ 05:25, 9 July 2013 (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:Infobox Switzerland station 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 after replacement with {{Infobox station}}. This may require adding additional parameters to {{Infobox station}}. However, since {{Infobox station}} was not tagged for merger, this should be discussed on the talk page if any additions are controversial. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Switzerland station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. 409 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no need for all these infoboxes that do the same thing. --Rschen7754 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to standard Infobox station. An obvious clone with the main parameters having identical names and the addition of national presets. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my comments above about Infobox Austria station apply equally to this one, except that this one already has a lot more transclusions. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and review - I need convincing that the standard infobox station does indeed do the same things as infobox switzerland station, and a better understanding than given above as to what is being proposed. My past attempts to to simplistically convert i-s-s to i-s have resulted in a lot of data not being displayed, and a more time consuming conversion still hits things that I cannot see how to express in i-s (like connections). I'd like to see a handful of exemplar conversions to illustrate how you propose to handle this. Also are you proposing an automated conversion, or are you volunteering to manually convert all 409 transclusions. Once we have reasonable answers to these, then I would be prepared to consider changing my vote to Delete. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a starting point, and to ensure we get a reasonable coverage, can I suggest exemplar conversions of:
Zürich Hauptbahnhof
Wald railway station
Flüelen railway station
Once you have done those, I'd be more than happy to check them to make sure we have not lost any data. Just drop me a message in my talk. - chris_j_wood (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have converted the three stations you requested in the collapsed table below. Since most parameters are identically named this was very easy. Note that {{{address}}} combines several components and {{{other}}} similarly includes all forms of connecting public transport. The one missing parameter that should have been added a long time ago is {{{architect}}}. I hope this demonstates the conversion that is being suggested here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of Infobox station. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after it is replaced because the template is redundant to Template:Infobox station. Martin Morin (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need to beware of making sweeping assumptions that all templates with "station" in the name do exactly the same thing and look at the templates in detail. "Infobox station" does not have many of the parameters in this template, so we risk losing important information, some of which is country-specific. Bermicourt (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as a frontend for {{infobox station}}. if the frontend is very weak (just passing through parameters), then reconsider deletion. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC). delete, upon closer inspection, this template is entirely redundant to {{infobox station}}, and the situation is really no different than {{infobox Slovenia station}} and {{infobox Slovakia station}}. the missing 'architect' parameter was recently added to {{infobox station}}, so no information will be lost be the conversion. Frietjes (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Delete per Secondarywaltz and Frietjes -PC-XT+ 23:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Ok. I'm convinced enough. The architect parameter has not been added to the doc, yet, but it is in the actual template. Using the other parameter instead of multiple connection parameters makes it less of a fill-in-the-blank template, and more of a content template, if you know what I mean. It may have been different for me if few stations had blanks in that area. -PC-XT+ 03:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm still concerned about converting administrative units (municipality and canton) into part of a postal address. I'm not sure whether the two are always congruent in Switzerland or not (I know they are not in some countries), but even if they are it introduces a loss of easily comprehensible information. Also the way the Wald entry has been converted implies to me Wald is in the city of Zurich rather than the canton of Zurich; but that can be resolved by the usage in the Zurich Hbf example. If Infobox Station supports some kind of typed 'in admin unit' type syntax, that could of course resolve this. But then we still havn't addressed the process of dealing with the 409 transclusions. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Chris, if we were discussing Template:Infobox Swiss town those parameters would be important but this level of detail has nothing to do with a railway station. The address is what belongs here and that other information should be maintained in the town/city article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2013 (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:Infobox Slovenia station 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, appears to be identical to {{Infobox Slovakia station}} below. The keep comments were focused on losing information, but all the parameters already exist in {{infobox station}}, so no information is being discarded. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Slovenia station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. Only 35 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no need for all these infoboxes that do the same thing. --Rschen7754 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to standard Infobox station. An obvious clone with the main parameters having identical names and the addition of national presets. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significantly different, like {{Infobox dot-com company}}, even though Andy made the same assertion about it.--Elvey (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Significantly different" in what way?. Why is this template needed? What does it have, that {{Infobox station}} lacks? You appear to have made pointy comment on a number of discussions on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my comments above about Infobox Austria station apply equally to this one. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of Infobox station. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after it is replaced because the template is redundant to Template:Infobox station. Martin Morin (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need to beware of making sweeping assumptions that all templates with "station" in the name do exactly the same thing and look at the templates in detail. "Infobox station" does not have many of the parameters in this template, so we risk losing important information, some of which is country-specific. Bermicourt (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacement without loss of information (i.e., may require adding parameters to infobox station). very weak fork of {{infobox station}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (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:Infobox Slovakia station 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) 22:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Slovakia station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. Only 18 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no need for all these infoboxes that do the same thing. --Rschen7754 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to standard Infobox station. An obvious clone with the main parameters having identical names and the addition of national presets. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And the presets aren't useful?--Elvey (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my comments above about Infobox Austria station apply equally to this one. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of Infobox station. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after it is replaced because the template is redundant to Template:Infobox station. Martin Morin (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacement. very weak fork of {{infobox station}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2013 (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:Future product 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) 00:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future product (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hi. This template is a form of unnecessary disclaimer that serves no purpose beyond saying "This article or section is about a future product" which can be said with words alone in the article. (In fact, that is probably why there is only one inbound transclusion of it. Also see articles that don't use it: Splinter Cell Blacklist and Command & Conquer (2013 video game)) To mark an article containing speculations, {{Crystal}} is used. To mark an article as being about a current event as WP:DATED requests, {{Current}} is used. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. That the article is about a future product should be clear from the lead. Unverifiable speculation should be removed or at least marked with {{Crystal}}. There's no need for this new template. Braincricket (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DFUTURE. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JDDJS (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This needless and superfluous template is yet another example temporal template proliferation. The text of the article is the correct location of all information to apprise the reader of the status of the speculative and time-based nature of the topic and article.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2013 (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 quick 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 move and mark as historical Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite quick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Although this is marked as Historical it is still being used; the number of articles it's included in has increased dramatically since it was last discussed when there were only a handful. Editors can still use it, perhaps copying it from other articles or just using it having seen it thinking it faster or easier to use. But now Lua is faster. Using this makes articles slower, if only marginally, and means they do not benefit from the other benefits of Lua-based templates such as the comprehensive error reporting, never mind future improvements and formatting changes.

This should be marked more clearly as historical, so it cannot be used inadvertently, and cleaned up from existing articles so it can't be copied and pasted. If that's not possible then it should be deleted, or moved without redirect out of template space, so there's no possibility it can be mistakenly used. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • note as the template is protected Twinkle hasn't added a notice to it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (again, from author): The Template:Cite_quick is a fast-cite template in the wp:CS1 family, and provides 2x (twice) the number of templates per page as the Lua-based Template:Cite_web (etc.), while showing the same data formats. If users are misusing the template, then contact them to discuss options, not delete the template as a form of usage control. This is the 3rd TfD for {cite_quick} from User:JohnBlackburne who has issued a TfD every few months (last TfD closed in April 2013, and prior TfD closed in October 2012). Meanwhile, {cite_quick} has been improved, for use in major articles, for nearly a year, and it has been thoroughly tested to ensure quality performance. With being a single template, it can be easily translated for use in other-language Wikipedias, as also running quickly to reformat their pages with wp:CS1-style cite templates copied verbatim from English Wikipedia. Also, {cite_quick} acts as a live example of how to process template parameters 5x-12x faster than prior methods. For that reason, it is also being kept to create similar templates for related purposes. Plus, {cite_quick} can be mixed and matched with other wp:CS1 cite templates, so it even works well when used accidentally in articles which some editors might have edited unaware. Many benefits, and few risks, plus very quick. Hence, strong keep. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't often agree with Wikid, but here I have to confess that he seems to be right. John says this is slower, Wikid says it's faster; who knows who is right. But the fact is, the nature of MediaWiki's template limits tends to favour leaner, slimmer templates that avoid Lua altogether (even if the difference is slimmer than without Lua). — This, that and the other (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redundancy is partial - still supports more templates per page, as author notes. Certainly don't move w/o leaving behind the nomad redirect.--Elvey (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to subpage {{Cite quick}} is now redundant to the Lua-based Citation Style 1 templates, which are maintained as a set. {{Cite quick}} is not being maintained as part of the CS1 templates since it does not use the core module which has a lot of features not in {{Cite quick}}. If style changes are made to CS1, then {{Cite quick}} will not follow (and there is one such change in discussion now). If this template is useful as an example for creating other templates, then create a help page that explains how to create such templates and move {{cite quick}} to a subpage as an example. --  Gadget850 talk 10:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to subpage and mark as historical. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to subpage and mark as historical. Now that the main CS1 templates have moved to Lua, {{cite quick}}'s speed is not so much of an advantage any more, and keeping it available in mainspace would incur a maintenance cost. If it is kept as it is, I can easily see a scenario where the main CS1 style is changed, but updates to cite quick lag behind or are overlooked. In articles using a mix of citation templates, this would result in differences in citation styles, which I think we should avoid. The template should be kept as an example of how to write a really fast template using ParserFunctions, but I would rather restrict the citation templates used in mainspace to the ones based on the CS1 module. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • related discussion Help talk:Citation Style 1#Perhaps a Lua Cite_fast as even 4x faster. --  Gadget850 talk 11:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite simply cite quick is slower and less functional than Lua. I'm not aware of any articles where using this would be better, and it is already marked as historical for essentially that reason. Personally, I don't really see any benefit in keeping it around as a teaching example either. Before the introduction of Lua cite quick had a useful function, and Wikid77 should be applauded for helping to work around the prior issues with citations in large articles, but now it is time to move on. In the interest of disclosure, I had removed cite quick from 20+ articles shortly before this TFD started (as well as six more after the TFD started but before I became aware of it), see: [1]. Dragons flight (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to subpage and mark as historical. --eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we really here again? I'm somewhat of the belief that marking this as historical rather than simply deleting it implies that it was ever something of importance to the project, rather than an irritation introduced by an editor fond of not listening to people. I'd very much hope never to encourage the editor in question to repeat said experiment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_27&oldid=1215077968"