Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 18



Template:Convert/valout/LoffAonSoffUSre

 * 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) 04:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert/valout/LoffAonSoffUSre

don't need it. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is nothing linking to it. Cathfolant (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2013 (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:Nothanks-sd-NPF

 * 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 relisted on Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 31. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2013 (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:Nothanks-sd2

 * 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) 05:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothanks-sd2

unused, and was merged per this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This looks like one of those templates which should always be substituted, so there should be no transclusions, therefore will be apparently "unused". -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A better measure is to search for key phrases in the notice, like this. the key is to use a phrase not frequently duplicated by other notices. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect, function served by db-copyvio-notice. I don't see the benefit of having this as well. Cathfolant (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2013 (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:Noble Network of Charter Schools

 * 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. The template was nominated for deletion fifteen hours after it was created on 18 August 2013. As of this close on 13 September 2013, the template has seven active links and appears to have had one active link when nominated. The discussion mostly focused on the lack of active links. The significant change in circumstances since the template was nominated means that just about all the discussion is not applicable to the present circumstances. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Noble Network of Charter Schools

Only one of these schools has its own article, and that article has only existed since yesterday. These are all very new charter schools, without much history, and I'd be surprised to see viable articles on all of them. It may be possible to write a decent article on each, but the average user won't have the skills to do it. It's more likely that we'll get a bunch of stubs, or a bunch of advertisements written by school employees. (Even the articles on Chicago's elite magnet schools are in lousy shape, so the idea of a bunch of new charter school articles makes me nervous.) Zagal e jo^^^ 17:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. When three of the schools have articles, the template can be recreated. No need to include redlinked and unlinked. Just add as articles are created once we have need for a template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * delete for now, not enough active links. Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note Since I started this discussion, two new stubs have been created, Baker College Prep and Chicago Bulls College Prep. So, part of my rationale is no longer valid, though I'm still not convinced we need so many independent articles for these schools. Zagal e jo^^^ 05:24, 20 August 2013 (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.

Ar and En

 * 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 replace uses of en and ar with and, in namespaces other than the file namespace to avoid issues with conflicting usage of these templates on commons. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC) (updated Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  21:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Ar
 * Ar icon
 * En
 * En icon

Propose merging Template:Ar with Template:Ar icon and Template:En with Template:En icon.

Two templates misguidedly imported from Commons. Redirect to icon tpls Ar icon and En icon and replace/remove instances of what should've been Lang-ar and Lang-en. — Lfdder (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Replace then delete replace all instance - ar with ar icon and en with en icon ; and then delete both ar and en -- we should not be beholden to Commons, despite all the attempts to make commons categories, templates, file rules function on en.Wikipedia as if it were Commons. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind just deleting them either. — Lfdder (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and  because this is the English Wikipedia, and there should be no need to mark text as being in English - that's the default state. Neutral on  and . -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we should keep en icon, even if this is English Wikipedia, it can be used in discussions. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree. The template documentation for  provides a number of examples of appropriate use of that template, eg in references to multilingual sources. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Definitely keep en icon. It is useful to clarify the language(s) in which a cited source is/are written when it might be ambiguous that it is in fact an English-language or multi-language source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand why one might delete en, but what is special about ar, since this is not the Arabic Wikipedia? Cathfolant (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it should be called ar icon or lang-ar, our existing non-Commons templates, that conform to Wikipedia and not Commons standards. On Wikipedia, the two letter language code templates are a mishmash of uses, and we should not encourage people to think that they would all work like Commons works, since they clearly do not (ie. de) or that they are even language templates, or that they exist. Commons has a template system, and we shouldn't import them, since it would just encourage wrongheaded tagging of files with "English" descriptions, and "Arabic" descriptions -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion is making some articles render in a non-optimal way, especially in citations. See the citations in Marian Cozma, for example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At Marian Cozma, the nine instances of are all superfluous, and in fact by being placed in the title they cause  to emit bad COinS metadata; the six instances of  and two instances of  should be replaced with Romanian or Hungarian respectively, both being placed inside the . -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Replace All such templates if it is feasible to do so. There are tons of these, like fr, it, and ms. I suspect that of the 270+ "icon" templates, a great many have these two- or three-letter templates as redirects. If you really want to get rid of the non-"icon" templates and make them non-functional, you'll need to find a way to blacklist the recreation of these redirects as functional substitutes for the "icon" templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support In case it's not clear, I support the original position that, at a minimum, the two templates proposed for merging should be converted to redirects. They are, as far as I can tell, duplicates of one another. It would be fun to turn this into a bigger project, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. As Jonesey95 mentioned, we should convert them to redirects as a minimum and not let the "better" solution (of replacement and deletion of these and all other ISO 639 code templates) deter us from merger/redirection in the interim. I do, however, strongly believe en-icon and lang-en should continue to exist, per Joneysey95, Bahnfrend and 76.65.128.222. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment – I don't get why you'd want to delete  or   when other similar templates, like ,   or  , are doing finely.  Epicgenius (talk to me • see my contributions)  13:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The suggestion is to delete all of these two-letter redirects to icon templates. — Lfdder (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what you originally proposed. If your TfM were carried out as proposed, the merge of to  would convert  into a redirect. If you wanted it to be deleted, you should have proposed a delete, not a merge. Similarly for . -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant Jonesey95's suggestion above. I know what I proposed, thank you very much. — Lfdder (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Jonesey95 made several suggestions (and seems to have !voted more than once), but doesn't suggest deleting any redirects - on the contrary, Jonesey95 "support[s] the original position that, at a minimum, the two templates proposed for merging should be converted to redirects". -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 13:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC), that's what I understand Jonesey95 to be saying. — Lfdder (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that is a quite different template.  Kanguole 08:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of them are (quite different from these language icons). -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * delete all the two letter templates after replacing with a suitable or  or  template. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a list of them somewhere? — Lfdder (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * two ways you could find them: (1) start from List of ISO 639-2 codes and see which ones are templates or (2) Category:Language icon templates and check to see which have analogs without the icon suffix. Frietjes (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I added about a dozen to that cat some time ago, thanks for doing the rest. — Lfdder (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing
Here's a complete list, I believe: User:Jonesey95/sandbox/language-templates. I started with the List of ISO 639-2 codes and 639-1 codes, then processed from there. The next step is to split the list of valid two- and three-letter templates into some number of types, including: You are welcome to continue my work by adding to my sandbox page. I need to go to bed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Templates that are not language-related, i.e. that do not serve the same purpose as the matching xx icon template.
 * 2) Templates that are already redirects to the matching xx icon template.
 * 3) Templates that do the same thing as the xx icon template and should be redirected (e.g. ar and en).
 * 4) Templates that are language templates but that are not coded like their matching xx icon templates (e.g. zh).
 * Thanks. These are the language codes from that list that don't redirect to xx icon:
 * El – lang/icon hybrid now a redirect to El icon like the rest
 * He – redirects to Lang-he
 * My – redirects to Lang-my-fonts
 * Sq – redirects to Lang-sq
 * Te – redirects to Lang-te
 * Ug – redirects to Lang-ug
 * Ur – custom lang="ur" wrapper
 * — Lfdder (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2013 (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.