Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 23 October 25 >

October 24[edit]

Template:Olympic Champions of Armenian Descent[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 Relisted on 2016 November 1 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:15, 1 November 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:Ordovician nav[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 now used Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These sorts of templates are important for WP:Paleontology categories, please don't delete them. Abyssal (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've transcluded the template into some of the relevant categories. Abyssal (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever method is used to determine that templates are "unused," does it take into account categories? I think these templates are very helpful on the category pages. Thanks! — Geekdiva (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. To try to answer your question, Geekdiva, I have the impression that for her nominations Frietjes is going through a report listing all templates without mainspace transclusions and leaving it to the rest of us to figure out if the templates are useful in other namespaces. – Uanfala (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uanfala, the list of templates with zero transclusions, and I make sure there are zero transclusions at the time of nomination. I clearly can not predict whether someone will transclude it after I nominate it. Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, my bad then. – Uanfala (talk) 22:36, 25 October 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:Organized crime in Las Vegas[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused with no clear source for contents Frietjes (talk) 22:54, 24 October 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:My desk[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and not useful for most users Frietjes (talk) 22:52, 24 October 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:Museums in Minnesota/scorecard[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused Frietjes (talk) 22:51, 24 October 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:Multiplication table[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates Multiplication table Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 24 October 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:Motörhead lineups[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates List_of_Motörhead_band_members#Timeline Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 24 October 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:Minnesota Havok seasons[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; deleted as G7 by GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

folded after one years, so not likely to be expanded Frietjes (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never even played, so no articles exist nor will. Tom Danson (talk) 03:26, 25 October 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:MinnesotaCountySeats[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates Category:County seats in Minnesota Frietjes (talk) 22:45, 24 October 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:MinneapolisPopulation[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, and duplicates article content Frietjes (talk) 22:44, 24 October 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:Michigan Wolverines softball coach 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates Template:Michigan Wolverines softball navbox Frietjes (talk) 22:43, 24 October 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:Mhl Eastlink Division 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 22:41, 24 October 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:Mexico nuke plant map[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 22:40, 24 October 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:Mexico football squad 1976 Summer Olympics[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not used and duplicates Football_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_team_squads#.C2.A0Mexico Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 24 October 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:Mexico family tree[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 Relisted on 2016 November 1 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 1 November 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:Mexico bids for the Olympic Games[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and all red links Frietjes (talk) 22:36, 24 October 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:Mexico National Football Team 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 Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and blanked Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 24 October 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:Mexico Labelled Map small (war)[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 24 October 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:Mexico Exports/Imports[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused Frietjes (talk) 22:34, 24 October 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:Mexicans of European descent[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

most recent RFC has basically eliminated ethnic galleries. Frietjes (talk) 22:17, 24 October 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:Mexican automotive presence timeline, 1920s-present[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 Relisted on 2016 November 1 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 1 November 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:Mexican Imperial Family[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mostly redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 22:10, 24 October 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:MetroColumbusSchools[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mostly redirects. Frietjes (talk) 22:05, 24 October 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:Meteo/class[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 deleted by User:Sphilbrick (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates Template:WikiProject Meteorology/class. Frietjes (talk) 22:02, 24 October 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:Metaportal[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, appears to have been imported from fr-wiki. Frietjes (talk) 22:00, 24 October 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:Metaphysical movement[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. should be used, userfied, or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 21:59, 24 October 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:Navbox Metropolitican City of Italy[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and duplicates {{Navbox Metropolitan City of Italy}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 24 October 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:Navies in South America[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and generally duplicates template:Navies in Latin America. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 24 October 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:Infobox Network Operators Group[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to {{infobox organization}} (replaced in North American Network Operators' Group and Swiss Network Operators Group). Frietjes (talk) 20:55, 24 October 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:Internet Exchange Point[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 24 October 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:Gastronomy by Country[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we already have a template for this, it's {{Cuisines}}. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 24 October 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:Meat-free[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

are we seriously going to list every meatless item, including clothing and hygiene products? Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 24 October 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:Gastronomy in Singapore[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

most of this is peripheral navigation and the rest is covered by categories. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 24 October 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:Navbox major railroad stations[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; deleted as G7 by Magioladitis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember this, so delete away. –Fredddie™ 01:03, 25 October 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:Gastronomy in Switzerland[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 20:41, 24 October 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:Navbox Singapore[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

copy-and-paste fork of {{Navbox Canada}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 24 October 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:Diplomatic missions in Singapore[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 Relisted on 2016 November 1 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:38, 1 November 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).

Web archive templates[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 merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a merger proposal for {{wayback}}, {{webcite}}, {{memento}} and {{cite archives}} (aka {{Cite additional archived pages}}). The new template is {{webarchive}}. The idea for creating a single archive template came out of a previous TfD discussion here.

Background
The number of web archiving sites is now extensive: List of Web archiving initiatives. Each one could have its own named template.
Proposal
A single template for all web archiving sites. Template documentation how it works.
Advantages
  • A single template for all archives, instead of dozens of separate templates for each service.
  • A single documentation page and single set of arguments to remember, instead of a confusion of different methods and output.
  • Simple usage. In most cases only two arguments are needed. The argument values are WYSIWYG.
  • Support templated linking to many archiving services currently not supported, except by bare links.
  • Multiple archive URLs for a single source URL. This idea came from {{cite archives}}. It's an important feature for dealing with Wayback's robots.txt policy blocks, for example, which can flap on and off.
  • Better integration with WP:Link rot bots that only need to program around a single template.
  • The new template has features and abilities the other templates are missing, such as tracking categories, date verification, warning messages, etc.
Merger

The rendered output of {{webarchive}} looks as close as possible to the original templates so there will be little disruption to pages.

If there is consensus to merge, I'll create a merger bot and apply for Bot approval where it will be tested and approved before running. -- GreenC 20:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Conditional support: I think that the {{Webarchive}} template should use |url= for the original URL and the above named |archiveurl= for the archive link to avoid confusion between the two. Any other problems can be worked out later. – Allen4names (contributions) 19:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I didn't do the CS1 style argument naming for a couple reasons. Happy to discuss it though, and if there is consensus (ie. I can't sway your view and others) I will change it, not stuck on it. Would you support a merge in principal, knowing we can work other things out as needed? -- GreenC 03:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed including the option presented by Evad37 below if that is preferred. – Allen4names (contributions) 04:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, seems like a good idea. I agree with Allen that we should use |url= for the original and |archiveurl= for the archive. Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to discuss it. Same comment as above basically, would you support a merge in principal, knowing we can work out changes to the template as needed? -- GreenC
  • Agree Merging them would be very helpful and machine-readable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per my comments at the previous TFD and template talk pages. I'm not too fussed about the parameters being urln rather than archiveurln, given that the template name includes "archive". Some parameter for the original url (that the template will just ignore and not mark as an error) does seem reasonable, given that some services give an archive url which doesn't indicate the original url (Webcite at least, perhaps others). But it doesn't necessarily have to be |url=, which is commonly used in the existing archive templates to indicate the archived url (and thus changing its meaning may make the merge harder to complete). Perhaps |origurl= or |originalurl= or similar? - Evad37 [talk] 03:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WebCite has a long-form URL (includes the orig URL) which we are supposed to use per this recent RfC. That covers 100% of the URLs in the merge proposal. Agreed we can have something like |origurl= for archives that use short URLs without a long option (presume they might exist in the future but don't know of any). -- GreenC 04:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per the discussion above. However, I don't understand Allen's proposal: "...{{Webarchive}} template should use |url= for the original URL and the above named |archiveurl= for the archive link". Is he asking for inclusion of the [non-archived] original link in the template? That seems superfluous, as the rationale is that the template adds archive link(s) to a pre-existing original link. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have cleaned up links to archives that should have used the original URL ie. https://web.archive.org/web/*/${archiveurl} instead of https://web.archive.org/web/*/${url}. At the very least there should be a parameter that accepts the original URL and does not trigger an error message. – Allen4names (contributions) 02:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above error was caused by a bot's data input error (ie. bug), and have been cleaned up (by me manually in the 100s). It's unrelated to template requirements and isn't indicative of how people normally use the template. The template will have functionality for the original URL though the need for it will be extremely rare. We are not supposed to use short-form archive URLs because url-shortening services are disallowed by policy, they can be used to hide blacklisted links. All archive services I am aware of have the option for long-form URLs (including WebCite) and thus there is no need for storing the original URL in the template as it's already there. Nevertheless I'll include the option for storing the original URL should an archive service in the future not support long-form URLs. -- GreenC 16:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In this case I support the nomenclature change to |archiveurl=. 64.134.101.48 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There will be functionality to support the original URL. That functionality will not be needed or used during the merger process - it will be there, but it won't be used because there is no reason to. What the original URL argument is called (url, origurl, etc) we can discuss on the template talk page but it won't effect the merger one way or another. -- GreenC 02:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge ... but do we need these templates at all? As Green Cardamom says,{{cite}}has parameters|archiveurl=and|archivedate=– why not simply use those parameters within{{cite web}}(etc.) instead of one or more special archive templates? — Stanning (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I once thought that as well, but learned there is a lot of overhead with CS1|2 that's not needed for this application so we have lighter specialized templates for external links. -- GreenC
Ah, OK. But I'd submit, the priority on a site like this should surely be simplicity of the UI for not-necessarily-experienced editors. If there's so much overhead with Module:Citation/CS1 that it seriously impacts performance, shouldn't that problem be addressed, since CS1|2 is used on 3,000,000+ pages already? [I know nothing about CS1|2 or Lua, but I've plenty of experience elsewhere with the performance–usability trade-off.] — Stanning (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably have to take that up at Help talk:Citation Style 1 but be prepared as it gets technical and requires some knowledge of the broader architecture. As background you could see this reply by Izno; and this comment thread by Tothwolf. -- GreenC 01:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment[EDIT] Support merge per talk above, I'm prepared to support merging on the proviso that url and archiveurl remain distinct parameters. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There will be functionality to link to the original URL, though such cases will be extremely rare (none during the initial merger). -- GreenC 01:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xb2u7Zjzc32, thanks for the lead on Wikiwix never heard of it. There's no API for checking if a URL is archived or not, and header response codes return 200 even when a page doesn't exist(!) so it's unusable for bots which is how most archiving is done now. There's also no snapshot dates to know when the archive was taken. According to this page the archive is deleted from Wikiwix if the external link is removed from Wikipedia; presumably that doesn't include checking if the link is still on English. For the past few years, all links added to Wikipedia have been archived at Wayback. Wikiwix also archived all links added to Wikipedia, but only for a limited set of languages. So there is overlap but Wayback has the larger archive, more reliable and usable for bots. -- GreenC 15:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge A no brainer. Afernand74 (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditionally support Merge. Great idea. , but use |url= for the original URL and |archiveurl= for the archive link, per Allen4names above. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC) revised per GreenC immediately below. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template provides functionality for the original URL and uses |origurl= for a number of reasons. The template purpose and name already includes "archive" so it's superfluous to signify a second "archive". Some parameter for the original url is reasonable, but it's usage is so rarely needed in the 80,000 merge cases, it will be used zero times. |url= is commonly used in the existing archive templates to indicate the archived url and thus changing its meaning may make the merge more confusing. Including a parameter called |url= will encourage editors to use it, but its usage creates interaction problems with scripts like Checklinks which will attempt to "rescue" the dead link it contains, leading to bad data in the template, so we want to keep usage to minimum only when required. We also want to encourage use of long-form URL, not short-form + origurl. The template is not CS1|2 and shouldn't be confused as such with CS1|2 nomenclature - editors will reflexively type in other args like |accessdate= etc.. which I have seen done in {{wayback}} mistaking it as a CS1|2 aware template. -- GreenC 21:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Basically I'd like to see {{Wayback}} and all those related templates to produce a CS1 style citation like {{cite web}}. --bender235 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I do some work with CS1, and this would seem to simplify things. Tamwin (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge One template which does all of the above is the best idea. Will help simplify referencing with Wayback Machine -- Marek.69 talk 07:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. ^^^^^^^^^^^ (ie "Wot they said") >MinorProphet (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - seems to be the most sufficient way.BabbaQ (talk) 19:38, 1 November 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:Opera lists[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 merge, no objections. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Opera lists with Template:Opera topics.
duplicate navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 24 October 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:Navbox performing arts[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rarely used and duplicates navigation found in {{performing arts}}. note, I replaced it in the opera article. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 24 October 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:Quantum mechanics topics[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 merge. I put the unused one in Template:Quantum mechanics topics/sandbox. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Quantum mechanics topics with Template:Navbox quantum.
duplicate navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 24 October 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:Strategic Educational Alliance of Southeast Asia[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 Relisted on 2016 November 1 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:05, 1 November 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:Bajo Aguán derby[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NRIVALRY; rivalries are not inherently notable. These teams have only played each other twice so at the very least this is WP:TOOSOON. Clear failure of WP:GNG demonstrated. Also, misuse of the template function; this should be an article. Spiderone 09:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, not notable and in wrong namespace. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 24 October 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).

squad templates for youth tournaments[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

previous precedent set for not having squad templates for youth tournaments Joeykai (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, we don't need youth squad templates. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 24 October 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_October_24&oldid=1084289436"