Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 13



Template:Refs

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was Redirect to Reflist. Mike Peel 07:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Crippled version of template:reflist without the options. Apparently it's "designed" for substitution, but there are over 500 pages transcluding it, so it's not doing a very good job. The navigation panel below edit boxes contains links which can be used to construct this template, so having a template for the purpose of substitution is a bit of a waste. This should be merged to template:reflist.:Chris Cunningham 14:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - handy shorthand for substitution (reflist can't be substituted (due to accessibility). The navigation panel does not assign the class. --Qyd 14:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow, I wish I knew what any of the above banter actually meant. It could secretly be some heart-racing stuff, but I wouldn't be able to tell.--C.Logan 23:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See Shorthand - template substitution - accessibility - MediaWiki:Common.css "references-small" class attribute; the shortcut table located below the edit box. Nice comment though, cheers ;) --Qyd 12:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * heh. I'm obviously dense too, because I really don't understand that rationale to keep either.


 * 1) not only can reflist be substituted, a  emits exactly the same code as
 * 2) if reflist supposedly had disadvantages, then these ought to be brought to the attention of the reflist maintainers, and fixed there. (Incidentally, I don't see any discussion of subst: problems at Template_talk:reflist).
 * 3) there was once a Template:References-small that was functionally identical to Template:Refs, but has since been "merged" by redirection to reflist.
 * 4) if refs was supposed to be subst:ituted, then it should have enforced that requirement.
 * -- Fullstop 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 No, the rendered result is the same, but  emits the (not so accessible) text:

 Besides, I still don't see any argument for why subst:ituting refs or reflist is at all desirable. Unsubstituted reflist is about as "official" as they come; there is even a one-click insert macro for it below every 'Save Page' button. It is the only non-charset template represented amongst the markup macros.
 * 2 the only issue with reflist is that it's complex - not really a disadvantage.
 * 4 it wasn't designed to be substituted (by whomever wrote it); nevertheless, it suits that purpose well (see also Template talk:refs). Cheers. --Qyd 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then talk to the people at reflist. Issues can (and should) be discussed before going off to reinvent the wheel.
 * The point of this Tfd is not to identify the disadvantages of reflist, but to provide reasons for keeping refs. Disadvantages of another template have to be resolved at that template, not by constructing a new one to "workaround" those presumed disadvantages before they are even on anyone's radar.
 * (again) NB: The fact that Template:References-small was nixed is more important that one might think: refs is effectively the recreation of a previously deleted template with no change in extent or functionality, ergo could formally even qualify as a speedy delete.
 * since "it wasn't designed to be substituted," what rationale was there for its creation in the first place?
 * -- Fullstop 04:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, refs was created before reflist and before Template:References-small (see templates history, get your facts right before talking about re-inventing the wheel and speedy deletions); That other similar templates appeared only proves the general usefulness of the idea. Now reflist has emerged as the "official" way to insert references; it also adds supplementary format options. I have no issue with that, it's a great template. Just too complex to be substituted. --Qyd 12:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. The general usefulness of the idea is not an issue relevant to this Tfd. The specific usefulness of Refs is.
 * 2. That reflist is "just too complex to be substituted" does not further a position to keep Refs. Instead of expressing a pro-vote for Refs (which is the subject of this Tfd), it expresses a contra-vote for reflist (which is not subject of this Tfd).
 * 2.1. With respect to reflist...
 * 2.1.1. If the complexity of reflist were such a problem, then this has to be brought to the attention of talk:reflist.
 * 2.1.2. The supposed disadvantage of "not" being substitutable has not been mentioned on talk:reflist either.
 * 2.1.3. It is possible to modify reflist so that it can be substituted without any (real or putative) loss of comfort.
 * 2.2. The implied inverse "refs is not complex and thus ideal for substitution" doesn't work very well either...
 * 2.2.1. complexity is by itself not an issue for or against substitution.
 * 2.2.2. refs is is being used by numerous pages that are not substituting it.
 * 3. there has been no rationale forwarded why substitution is at all desirable.
 * 3.1. If substituting reflist is not agreeable to you, then simply don't substitute it!
 * 3.2. Even if it were at all desirable to subst, there is still no reason why refs can't redirect to reflist; reflist can easily be modified to have the - real or putative - advantage that refs supposedly has.
 * -- Fullstop 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't see any problem with reflist, it's good the way it is. I don't "imply" anything, and I completely agree that this is not the place to discuss another template. As for reasons to substitute, I mentioned that a long time ago on Template talk:Refs. It has to do with references added before Cite.php and inline citations were implemented in wikipedia. --Qyd 21:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect - represents a duplication of effort. Also, the effectively identical Template:References-small (and Template:Reference) has previously been nixed. I suggest a bot be asked to rewrite the pages currently transcluding refs. Otherwise, it serves as a bad example of "how to." -- Fullstop 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Redirect - why be forced to type 7 characters when 4 will do? Waggers 22:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Comment -- To me, reflist functionally indicates a list of references. Refs suggests all sorts of things, like referees. -- Guroadrunner 11:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect duplicates reflist only less elegantly or functionally. I don't see how substitutability is an argument for keep since there is really little reason to subst it in the first place. As for Waggers' "keep", it looks like laziness. Axem Titanium 00:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:Sustainability and Energy Development

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was portalize (any editor can do so). After it has been portalized, it should be deleted. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There were complaints about the old Sustainability and energy development group template being bloated, so it was drastically cut down. It was Proposed for deletion and didn't receive a single vote to keep as it was (but quite a few to split and/or portalize, resulting in no consensus).

Now it has been merged into this page, and is bloated again. It's way too big to be useful, and requires manual maintenance so will always tend to get out of date. Being so big, it naturally will contain of lot of links that don't relate to whatever article it is placed on.

I don't see what it achieves that portals and categories do not. Can anyone explain why it is beneficial?

I propose: portalize (to conserve the considerable work done by a number of editors - if the links aren't already in a portal) and then delete.

I'm concerned that if we just cut it down or split it, it becomes a judgment call as to what stays in, and inevitably people will keep adding links until it's bloated again. --Chriswaterguy talk 12:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If it were going to be a template, then the collapsed-by-default style at the bottom of Pennsylvania State University would be more acceptable. That would be tolerable, but not enough to make me enthusiastic about it. Change my vote to neutral if the collapsed-by-default option is enabled. --Chriswaterguy talk 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Something definitely needs to be done. Simply losing all of the crufty white background cells would help. Another possibility would be to do whatever with the content, and replacing the content with links to Portal:Sustainable development and Portal:Energy --Belg4mit 04:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What a monster! Portalize or plain delete. --Pjacobi 11:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

When I last took the template, I separated it into 4 or 5 templates with a common header in another template. However it has since been brought back together but I would vote for it to be separated into 5 templates (Future, Transportation, Energy Conversion, Sustainability and Management). Then each of the would have a common template for a header to link to each of them. Also, I would recommend for Energy Conversion and Sustainability be broken up into the categories that each has. Behun 19:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be better - provided it was maintained, and those who want to merge it again are informed of the decision. I think the history of this template shows how hard that is. And I'm still not convinced of its essential value as a template. As a portal, perhaps. --Chriswaterguy talk 10:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I support the views of Chris, portalise as a preference but current template is far too unwieldy to keep.--Alex 07:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Portalize (and delete the template). As navigational tools, I prefer categories, and can see a role for "list of.." regular wiki articles. Portals are a fine way to open the door to a subject. Splattering navigation templates, large or small, throught articles just comes off as visually nasty: it makes articles busy and cluttered, and hard to wrap one's mind around. Kinda like Chinese menus: I love the food, but the menus are unbearable to read. Strive for simplicity and directness, strive to inform. Templates bamboozle, obfuscate and misdirect. linas 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - if and only if it is collapsed by default, per above. 1of3 20:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but break down into separate portals -- the idea of this overall is a definite keep. The largesse of it is the problem. It needs to be shrunken into separate portals. The main template can be used as links to those portals, in theory. Guroadrunner 10:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you mean: Portalize (break down into separate portals) and then delete. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Portalize (and delete the template). I find templates useful to find related cities, chemical formulas etc. For the wide field of Sustainability and Energy Development I would agree with User Linas.Inwind 13:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are a lot of people here suggesting that the template is portalized; as such the result of discussion will most likely be to portalize it. Are there any volunteers to create the new portal and maintain it? It's one thing for a disinterested admin to simply keep or delete a template, but it's quite another thing to create a new portal based on a deletion debate. Mike Peel 07:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess that Portal:Sustainable development would be a good place. Inwind 13:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 newspaper

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was delete. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC) &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundant to another better-designed template (Template:Cite news), currently not used and only prior use (Note 3) used it incorrectly. Conrad T. Pino 08:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - redundant and unused.  Speedy? — Omegatron 17:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - Speedy? No objection here. — Conrad T. Pino 21:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is no speedy deletion criteria that fits here (see WP:SD). Mike Peel 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur - I didn't find one when I looked. — Conrad T. Pino 21:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cite news or delete as redundant. Grace notes T § 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - offers no functionality that is not better provided by the Template:Cite news, hence redundant. Mazca 14:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant and unused. The template's history shows a merge proposal in April 2007 which got no response at all, so it seems unlikely this template has a large band of supporters. EdJohnston 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom. MJCdetroit 03:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Gohst 08:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect, and send a bot to see if anything uses this template -- can't have things get screwed up if the template is deleted. But it is redundant. Guroadrunner 10:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bot not required - As of this writing there are NO ARTICLE LINKS of any kind. The only existing links are non-transclusion references in User and Wikipedia namespaces which are expected because the template must be cited in User's Tfdnotice and Wikipedia discussion pages (like this one). – Conrad T. Pino 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unused and superseded by Cite news. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Barnstars of National Merit templates

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was withdrawn. Non-admin close.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 19:31, 13 October 2007 (GMT)

All of these are unused and completely unnecessary. We already have the Barnstar of National Merit main template. These are all splits from that and unnecessary. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep these barnstars are parts of our projects and parts of our work and effort, why do you have a problem with those templates? Let the projects live alone or participate, but do not delete their work.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 08:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most of these templates do not link to any WikiProjects or anything else. All they link to is random pages or to the various deletion pages. They are simply taking up space. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, have you already seen this ?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 09:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So that's one. Still doesn't take away from the fact that these are unused. And all but the Czech one (the Lithuania ones, Meso, Lebanon, Romania WikiProjects) do not have the barnstar anywhere on their main project page. And I don't see them referenced anywhere else either. And ROC doesn't refer to the correct WikiProject (correct one is WikiProject Taiwan) and it is also unused. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you mean it unused we use subst: keyword. If there are problems with other templates, just go and fix them or help them by telling how to fix them, but do not delete it just because YOUDONTLIKEIT.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You aren't assuming good faith here. If I didn't like these templates, then why did I categorize several of the Barnstar of National Merit templates instead of putting them up for deletion? See this, this and this. If you disagree with deleting the article, that's fine. But please don't jump to conclusions about other people's intentions. It's counterproductive. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing the deletion because honestly, I didn't think about the fact that these are subst'd. So I'll categorize these, which was my first intention anyway. That's how I ran into these templates. But Tulkolahten, as I said, disagree if you want to, but attacking others is completely unnecessary. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, it took a much work to run the project and when finally it is going you come with deletions.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 10:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo! has brought up a good point. I'll try to get around to creating a subpage to Lithuania and Romania at WikiProject Eastern Europe or on the specific country Project pages. Though Barnstars aren't really my thing. As for the others, I can only don't delete but sofixit. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Language boxes

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was Delete. No objections to deletion prior to being relisted, and unused in the article namespace. Mike Peel 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

None of these are being used in any articles, and for the most part they are all redundant to Chinese. Extra fields can be added to the Chinese template if necessary. PC78 20:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete redundant.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 19:32, 13 October 2007 (GMT)
 * 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.