Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 4 April 6 >

April 5[edit]

Template:Quantico (TV series)[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 2017 April 15. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2017 (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).

Short-form station link 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 subst and delete. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:NRrws and Template:NRstn with Template:Stnlnk.

The {{stnlnk}} template has existed for ten years, it takes the name of a railway station and expands it into a link, e.g. {{Stnlnk|Alexandra Palace}} → [[Alexandra Palace railway station|Alexandra Palace]]. Two templates were created relatively recently (late 2016), which do basically the same thing except that their input is a station code, e.g. {{NRrws|AAP}} → [[Alexandra Palace railway station|Alexandra Palace]]. I find the two newer templates to be cryptic beyond the point of usefulness - you need to know the codes, which means a table of codes - so you're doing one lookup in order to perform the reverse lookup. The presence of these encoded forms in articles reduces the readability of the page source when editing. Then there is the redundancy and the maintainability - Template:NRrws and Template:NRstn each contain two {{#switch:}} statements, each of which has 2654 options, and the four are similar. The only difference between Template:NRrws and Template:NRstn is on line 2566, where one switch ends and the other begins: one has 
}} station|{{#switch:{{{1}}}
and the other has 
}} railway station|{{#switch:{{{1}}}
Since the generated links differ slightly, you usually need to know which template to choose, since not all redirects exist. When a new station is opened, two new rows need to be added to each template, four new rows in all - and they need to be identical. A previous discussion (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 37#Cryptic templates - NRstn and NRrws) suggested bringing them to TfD, and since I have seen renewed use of these templates in recent days, I feel that it is time. The format also confines use to the British national rail system, since other countries doubtless have their own coding systems. I am therefore proposing that existing uses of Template:NRrws and Template:NRstn be replaced with an appropriate invocation of Template:Stnlnk. The latter template will not be altered. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the National Rail templates (after replacement); practically unused (4 and 9 transclusions each) and somewhat counterintuitive. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     12:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 2 templates which use the codes. Most editors don't know the codes, and we oughtn't to expect them to know. The use of these templates causes unnecessary confusion. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose merging - NRrws and NRstn are a couple of huge look-up tables. Merging them into a small effective template like stnlnk is not efficient for a dozen or so transclusions. Optimist on the run (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that there has been confusion with the wording. Redrose64 makes clear in this comment that he is not proposing changes to Template:Stnlnk, merely to get rid of the other 2 templates and use Template:Stnlnk instead. "Merging" is therefore presumably the wrong word. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, I am not proposing any changes to {{stnlnk}} but desire it to be left alone because of its high transclusion count; but only two options are available to the nominator - delete or merge, see WP:TFDHOWTO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So for that I think that you would propose Template:NRrws and Template:NRstn for deletion, and not propose any change for Template:Stnlnk. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I misunderstood the purpose of the TfD. I've struck my oppose if no changes are proposed to stnlnk. I'm neutral, verging on weak delete, on NRrws and NRstn, with a comment that if they are kept it should be possible to simplify them using a sub-template so that there is a single look-up table for them both. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2017 (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:British honours system[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 2017 April 14. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2017 (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:Current Scottish MSPs[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 2017 April 14. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2017 (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:Straight Edge Society[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 "The American Wolves", and no consensus for the rest. Feel free to renominate if there are any more which you would still like to see deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small wrestling stable. Just 4 members, I don't think the SES needs a template for just 4 members. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fabulous Kangaroos - two fold, there are six members (and I am working on the last two) and the current articles are close to being a "Good Topic".  MPJ-DK  23:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - regarding Vince's Devils, the template was originally required to link all the articles to make it a Good Topic. I always thought that was a silly requirement, but it might have to stay. Nikki♥311 03:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the Ascension template has seven articles, why is that lumped into a "delete the 4 link templates"? Seem inappropriate.  MPJ-DK  17:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2017 (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).

NCAA Division II football coach navboxes[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 userfy per request. No opposition to deletion. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above either have one or two links in the navboxes, which fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 09:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I request that any of these be moved to my userspace if they are to be deleted as a result of this discussion. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2017 (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/2017_April_5&oldid=1138532542"