Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 9

< January 8	January 10 >

January 9 edit

Template:IC Bus product lineup 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) 14:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IC Bus product lineup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and no links specifically related to the topic of the navbox. NSH002 (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2014 (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:Sri Lankan Economic Development ministers 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) 14:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sri Lankan Economic Development ministers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN The Banner talk 01:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep template of a ministerial office in the cabinet of Sri Lanka, which is the general practice.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2014 (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:Disclaimer medisch lemma 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disclaimer medisch lemma (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, not likely to be used, apparently copied from the Dutch Wikipedia (hence the name). There is an ongoing current discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer‎ about whether a similar template should be created, but this one isn't going to be it. — Scott • talk 17:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NODISCLAIMERS -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2014 (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:Anthropic Bias 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anthropic Bias (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in use; though surely created in good faith, it is a vehicle for unsubstantiated WP:OR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article (if it can be sourced) or Delete if not. I suspect the information came from somewhere. If it's reliable, it belongs in the general article on the metric system. There is no point to it being a template, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete after substitution. Frietjes (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. This template has a usage of the term 'anthropic bias' that is not to be found in philosophical and scientific literature. —Omnipaedista (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after substitution on that talk page —PC-XT+ 00:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 00:44, 10 January 2014 (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:Embwlink 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 to userspace. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template makes unreadable link soup. It's a usability and accessibility disaster in the making. I appreciate that the author meant it well but there's no way we should ever allow this to be used. Sorry. — Scott • talk 15:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I'd like to hear a very good explanation of why we'd ever want to link to a Wikipedia article within an external link. After all, if the target article is linked elsewhere in the article, then why link to it again? If the external link is the only mention of the target article in the article, on the other hand, that would tend to suggest that linking is unnecessary. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many potential uses, where terms in a webpage title are not linked in the upper text, such as title, "Reception of Mozart in the Rococo Period versus the 1960s". Of course, wikilinking inside a external-link title could be done similarly without using a template, and so deleting the template does not decide policy issues for wikilinks. -Wikid77 18:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but that doesn't mean use. Templates can be useful for demonstration purposes, for example, to demonstrate why it would be undesirable to have Wikilinks in external links. Personally, I think it might be worth considering actually using it if we change it to something like "Tests Confirm Swine Flu Case In Wisconsin" , which is very simple to code. Allow continued tinkering - I don't think this template will be flying off the presses anytime soon. Wnt (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps move it to your userspace, then? Otherwise if it's in the template namespace, others might think that it's OK to use. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's Wikid77's template (I just logged one version in the history for comparison) so probably his userspace would be more appropriate if you must go that way, but I don't think that is really necessary - a simple notice that it isn't ready for prime time seems sufficient. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got my "users-beginning-with-W" confused! Bencherlite ^Talk 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't work last time - {{Cite quick}} was marked as 'historical' to prevent use but it didn't stop editors using it in mainspace. That required a second discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 27#Template:Cite quick. To prevent that happening if this is kept it should be out of template space, and so moved to e.g. user space.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this further, and seeing the way this vote is going, I think the way forward may be with discussed edits to more general templates. For example, at one point, after some discussion,^[1] I was trying to clear a way to make Template:link available for reuse - my initial purpose being to allow quotes and brackets in links, as for search interfaces on websites - that was a tiresome task but I should go back and try to get it done. There's no reason why such a template couldn't have a range of decorative link styles available in an extra parameter, including some that would allow Wikilinks inside a link. Another option is that Wikid77 is well familiar with the citation template complex, and with public support he could change those to make a different style of external link; a comprehensive External Links template might work the same way. By using such complex templates, and doing proper discussion before changing millions of pages, it should be possible to get some kind of exteranl link that is much better-looking than foo and also better looking than my ad hoc example above, and to roll it out on such a wide basis that it is not chaos but a new order. Wnt (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete So many issues it's difficult to know where to start. In addition to the above very good points the EL section in many articles is the subject of enough debates, policies, spam/COI/overuse over whether such links belong, how they should look. Adding more links would just require more policies and debates over whether and how they should be used. Keep the links where they are, in content, See also sections etc. These allow for all links that should be in an article, covered by guidelines and long established practices that all editors [should] understand.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assumed that the See Also section was where this template would be used. Quite often See Also introduces organizations or literary works that are not otherwise discussed in the article, which is why a person might want to put links and wikilinks in the same text. The other place to use them would be inside reference tags (i.e. if the title of a journal article contains terms to Wikilink). The use of a graphical template like I proposed might become less obtrusive (and would not need to be as visible either) if done consistently throughout the references and see also sections, and not elsewhere. I do agree that even when you're too lazy to expand a bare link in the main body of an article into a cite template, you should at least put it inside a pair of ref tags, and so the template should not appear in main body text. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the See Also section should have just links to related articles, one per line. Sometimes brief text is added to e.g. describe them but it's usually not needed as what's linked is obvious from the title. More than one link per line is just confusing, while external links, being not at all related articles, are especially not needed. Refs meanwhile have their own template with pretty comprehensive linking support. Anything to be added to that should be raised at the discussion page(s) for that template, not shoe-horned it via a new one.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooops, sorry, I meant the External Links section! I tend to get them confused, in part because I never really understood why we have them so separate in the first place. It's really hard for me to remember that the world isn't the way I want it to be. :) Wnt (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author. The specifics of the template can be modified, to reduce any confusion, and deletion should not be the first step in setting guidelines for use of wikilinks. -Wikid77 18:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a nice piece of work. And thinking about and working on improvements to external links is probably worthwhile. And I can't be sure yet it mightn't have some use, or that the code might have some application in future. But the example given of use is confusing, and I wouldn't want to see that implemented generally. So userfy for now. Herostratus (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - I'm not sure where this is going, but willing to see what it becomes, and how raised concerns are addressed —PC-XT+ 00:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the option to userfy. There is no reason to have Wikilinks in URLs in the references, and no reason to have URLs in running text in articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—there are many issues that preclude the usage of this template's functions. Between accessibility and usability, not to mention stylistic issues related to our MOS, this template should not be used in articles, and therefore it should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 04:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userify; this is horrible from a UI/UX perspective, and should not be used in articles. Having it be in the template mainspace encourages that. L Faraone 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete or userfy, non-intuitive and not needed in main space. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2014 (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.