Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 15 April 17 >

April 16 edit

Orphaned Template:Cite pmid and related subpages edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete all subpages. No consensus on deleting the parent template. Izkala (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per an RFC to deprecate the cite pmid template structure (similar to a related cite doi structure that has already been TFD'd), {{cite pmid}} has been deprecated. There still remain about 7100 template subpages that are due for deletion. If this TFD is approved, we have access to an admin bot that can do the deletions. -- Netoholic @ 22:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support subpage deletion, oppose deletion of actual template. Given the extensive history of the template itself and links to it, I think we can mark template:cite pmid as template:historical rather than deleting it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only way to guarantee editors don't attempt to keep using this (and cite doi) is to delete them. Looking at the page, there's no significant value in keeping it, even as historical value. Most of the incoming links are just from user talk pages. Not sure a few red links are much to worry about. Category:Deprecated templates kept for historical reasons only has 11 entries, and 3 of them are the cite templates. We usually only keep templates when removing them would seriously break archives or other valuable historical pages in the Wikipedia: space. This doesn't seem to be the case here. --Netoholic @ 23:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can remove the guts of it which is just a cite journal wrapper anyways and make sure the historical mark is included. Besides, they aren't actually adding more uses, it's just cleanup on the current ones which are largely orphaned and thus a waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as it's just a way to turn Wikipedia into a database of PubMed citations, contravening WP:NOT so should have been deleted when it was first created, instead of being deprecated recently -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There's been repeated consensus at large-scale RfCs against hiding away references in subpages. I'm indifferent about whether the main template goes the way of the dodo, but if it is kept, all functionality should be removed. ~ RobTalk 13:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support subpage deletion, oppose deletion of actual template. This way when viewing page histories we can still have the link to PMID. I'll !vote the same way for the other cite {id} templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support subpage deletion, oppose deletion of actual template to preserve links to {{cite pmid}} on talk pages. The main attraction to using these templates was that the the citation data was automatically added by a bot. This functionality has since been removed. Very few if any of the underlying data templates were manually created by editors. Hence the risk that these templates will be continued to be used is very low. Boghog (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izkala (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete template:Cite pmid/11027440 just a residue of this historical template and if they really want to see them then there is Wp:Delrev Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all subpages using adminbot. Per RfC discussion. 103.6.159.70 (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This relisting is more than a week old. Can we get a snow close to delete the subtemplates please? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Barisal Burners Roster edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was subst and delete. The only argument against deletion was a loss of content, but substitution effectively preserves the content, so that addresses the single keep rationale. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These cricket teams disbanded in 2013, so a roster template is not needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are they still in use like at Barisal Burners? If the article wants to template the final team (seems like a poor idea but it's been done) then the template is somewhat usuable. Else, it's not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izkala (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing a discussion to relist it on a new day? Is there any purpose to that beyond hiding the fact that there is a backlog? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea is to increase exposure. This is how it's been done on TfD for as long as I've been here. Can you please ask these questions at WT:TFD? Izkala (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • When the best reason is "it's how it's always been done", maybe the reason is not very good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just said it's done to increase exposure. But maybe you're right, we shouldn't be doing it - can you start a new thread at WT:TFD? Izkala (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The templates are still being used, Wikipedia doesn't cover just current events, why shouldn't it cover forever the 2013 teams? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the respective articles and delete. sure, we don't cover just current events, but we also don't need to segregate the content from the articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference athletic director navbox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links is not enough to navigate... ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 00:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_16&oldid=955544499"