Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 20



Template:Harry Potter family tree

 * 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 subst and redirect. Alakzi (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Regardless of the complexity of the text here, this is simply a giant pile of hard-coded text used in a single article (Harry_Potter_(character)). The template itself requests citations but it's impossible for editors to navigate it from the article unless they learn how to navigate into the template itself (from which the template forces a particular reference style which could differ from the article). It may be much uglier but I think the template should be hard-coded into the article (if it belongs at all anyways). Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Harry Potter family tree
 * keep - its nice to have big complicated text (which doesnt change a lot) in template space. The editor can press the "v t e" to edit the template. Christian75 (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * move to article space, merge with main article, and redirect to preserve attribution. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete single-article template. We include complex MATH statements and lengthy filled in infoboxes directly in articles. There is no reason this should not do so as well. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2015 (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:White - America's most noteworthy railroaders

 * 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 at Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 12. Alakzi (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Specific source citation template that is just hard-coded text. In particular, it's hard-coded text of a range of pages. I see from User:Slambo/Railroaders that the range is a very, very useful source and while it is six pages and that's not particularly difficult, the fact that no one can edit this without figuring this out if they want to be more particular is not helpful in the long term. This template is called on a number of pages but it seems to be in the references section as the editor didn't use in-line referencing. Suggest that it be userified and User:Slambo can substitute the citation manually to save themselves time but someone else may prefer to break out the specific page number especially if there's an article that involves multiple references to the range. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * White - America's most noteworthy railroaders
 * keep – Thank you for notifying me of this discussion. This is one of the templates that I started way back in 2005 before we had cite journal and the references extension (the tools were added in 2006), which is the main reason why it wasn't used as a footnote reference in many articles that were also created around that time.  I have a copy of the journal noted in the template in my personal library, so I can go back to the pages that call it to make more precise use of it with current citation tools.  In 2007 the template was updated to use the citation template for formatting consistency with other references.  As to it noting a specific page range, I may be biased with a degree in computer science and background in programming, but it's not that difficult to add a conditional parameter for subsequent users to list a single page instead of the default page range for this journal article.  I understand that the validity of the source itself isn't under question (the author of the article being cited, John H. White, Jr., was a curator at the Smithsonian for almost 20 years), but I don't see how userfying this template will help to improve it or its use.  Slambo (Speak)  22:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is, of what use is this template? I have a similar background and I too create my own templates for books I refer to but I also keep those in userspace and substitute them so that the actual text is there in the article. These kinds of templates have been problematic for years here. First issue: do you plan on adding a documentation subpage (which is overkill), even if you do, you require that anyone else who wants to refer to this journal article must also understand how your citation template work. Let's take your current proposed solution: if you plan on adding a page number parameter, I presume you won't go with option (A) some unique, esoteric choice (even if it's that's esoteric but the basic citation templates don't do that). If you want it to keep the current page numbers as some default, that's more complicated. Now, with or without documentation, people are not always going to want to keep citations in the same format forever and people creating templates using their own parameters and other fun is cute but enormously head-aching inducing (and that template had a documentation subpage). Then again, your second option is (B) use page or pages so that it's just further existing as a mere wrapper of cite journal with certain parameters of text hard-coded for your convenience. Great, so you have a template that hard-code some parts of the most common template, has some parameter and has some parameters that do not pass through. And the only way anyone will figure out that someone will figure out that this template (unlike say, Template:White - American railroad freight car, recently of yours) does happen to pass the page parameter while the other one doesn't is by pure trial and error or by learning the particular choices you made in the template at the time you made it. Point being, what is gained by all this? This is literally all text you could copy and paste into a citation, it's all easy for you to understand but if somehow, we find an editor who (1) has the same interest, (2) wants to add to one of the rail transportation articles, (3) sees your reference (4) understands WP:V and wants to help, that's not particularly out there but that person also must (5) must also learn exactly how in the world templates in general work (not just cite journal which many people still have a fit and consider too complicated) but this particular template's formatting. This isn't new, this kind of stuff has existed here for years and at some point, people decide that the formatting needs to be changed and then the editors who created it get their talk pages full of hundreds of notices to be told "we're hard coding this into the article but one person's personal preferences as to what is easier or not is not the way to go."  Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. With the addition of some Harvard notation this template would be easy for others to use. The solution here is to improve the existing template to be more similar to the other templates in Category:Rail transport book citation templates, not userfy or delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're forcing Harvard notation through this format. That's fine and all but it isn't in every article and I'm pretty sure the main CS1 template allow for it already. Are we better off with template that force various notation formats? At some point, we may change formatting and then it's another game of finding hundreds of various templates that force one or another and stripping that out. I don't get what is so special about that category. A user comes by and wants to help on rail transportation articles. It's not "here's a list of books, websites, journals that we use for our articles that are good sources," (which the project page could have) it's "here is a list of somewhat cryptic names that refer to templates, go review these templates to see the citation its referring to (and from find the book you want to use? or is it once you find the book, you figure out its template? i don't get it) and then maybe you can figure out how to use the citation (maybe its like this version that hard-codes a particular set of pages, maybe it's like the change Slambo will make that doesn't, maybe it's like Template:White - American railroad freight car that is a call to cite book but if you try to cite the pages parameter, it won't work). Again, you're adding layer upon layer of work for new editors to learn to be able to help. And why? Are citations that aren't in a template worse in some way? If I want to cite a book but the book has a template, must I use the template? If the citation doesn't use the page parameter, can I not use it or do I have to learn about the template language to fix it? Wouldn't a list that contained both the citations in template and the citations with just cite book be more useful? Should every book that is a source be made into a citation? My point is, if someone is referring to this book repeatedly, find, use the thing in their own place like I did with User:Ricky81682/Template:Johnson but don't force everyone else to use the template just because you designed one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No one's forcing anything. Rather, the standard is to make the ref, page, and pages parameters available as passthoughs so that others may use them as they choose. You'll find if you looked around that a properly formatted template is used with Harvard notation and with direct citation. The primary purpose of this template, as with any template, is to standardize something that was previously add-hoc. I cannot tell you how much randomness I have seen with book citations, particularly in railroad articles. It's of great benefit to have a single template that authoritatively describes a book which is used in dozens of articles. Substing doesn't help that because it opens up that citation to entropy on the individual article. It also makes it straightforward to track down where a book is used if someone needs to check references. Mackensen (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hard-coded citations are never appropriate. In particular, the page range could be incorrect when used in an article (i.e. would be more specific if an actual citation template were used). The style of the reference may be inconsistent with the article as a whole. This is also redundant to Cite journal. This should be re-coded as a wrapper for Cite journal and substituted. Consider what occurs if we do not routinely delete hard-coded references. If we had a template for every reference used on the project a handful of times, they would proliferate uncontrollably. ~ RobTalk 03:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I confess that I don't grok the hatred TfD regulars seem to have for these templates. They're useful, when implemented correctly, as I've noted above. If you're claiming that these templates are *never* appropriate then you should initiate a policy discussion because otherwise TfD is (again) intruding into editorial matters. If you mean that the page range shouldn't be fixed then you're right, but that's a common enough pattern when working with journal articles, particularly if one is accustomed to Chicago-style. I'm aware now that cite journal recommends against it, but the matter wasn't so settled ten years ago. Mackensen (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have updated this template to provide standard passthrough parameters. Pages are no longer forced. I have also added documentation. Mackensen (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2015 (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:Wonderfullife

 * 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 subst and delete. Alakzi (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Citation template consisting entirely of a wrapper for cite book template. Doesn't include the ISBN number and there's no way to pass the page number into the template (which is asked for here). Excluding the 3 redirects, it's used in six pages and just makes the citation harder not easier. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonderfullife
 * Subst and delete with the pn template attached, since these are missing pages -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Replace and delete per nom. -sche (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2015 (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:Vapereau

 * 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 subst and delete. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Single used citation template of hard-coded text (other than the random call to "Articletitle" which is not something that should be fixed and not changeable. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Vapereau
 * Safesubst and delete-- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2015 (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:Charles

 * 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. Alakzi (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Orphaned citation template that consists entirely of hard-coded text. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Charles
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2015 (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:Admin request

 * 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 merge. Alakzi (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Admin request with Template:Admin help.
 * Admin request
 * Admin help

Per outcome of recent discussion of. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per my comments in the previously-referenced discussion. These two templates are rather identical to each other, and if they can be merged together to allow use on any discussion page (talk, etc), then the need for both of these is unnecessary. However, these two templates put their tagged pages into two different categories: Admin help uses Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators, and Admin request uses Category:Wikipedia requests related to admins. Maybe a namespace check can be implemented into the merge to have the former appear when the tag is in the "User:" (incorrect placement, but still...) or the "User talk:" namespaces, and the latter appear on all others. Heck, maybe even just have what is currently at Template:Admin help run when the template is in either one of those two namespaces, and have Template:Admin request run for all others (though I'd really like to see one of the categories disappear since the categories seem redundant.) Steel1943  (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the previous discussion, a merge could probably be done without any loss in functionality, and I would support that if undertaken properly. IMO the merged template should use Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators, which is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia requests related to admins, and the merged template needs some wording tweaks to encompass the processes that each template currently creates. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:56, 22 August 2015 (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:ASTM standards

 * 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 keep. Alakzi (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC) The inclusion criterion is unclear. There are hundreds of standards in list of ASTM International standards, and if they are going to be included in the navbox, then it will become too large. Moreover one can simply go to Category:ASTM standards to find other standards. Quest for Truth (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ASTM standards
 * Comment WP:CLN -- Categories display articles by their name, if the ASTM stadnard is also a standard for another standards organization, it may appear under a non-ASTM name. We don't have hundreds of articles on ASTM standards, so the List lists more than what we have articles on. The template would then only list those where the standard appears in an article on Wikipedia, under its ASTM name and not some other name. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the template includes only the ASTM standards which have their articles? Such inclusion criterion is arbitrary, and may mislead the readers about the total number of ASTM standards. The template is also replaceable by the category, as category only shows the standards that have their own articles. For the name issues, if a standard goes by another name because it is also a standard under another organization (actually can you name such an example?), a redirect from the ASTM name to the alternative name should be created. --Quest for Truth (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not arbitrary inclusion criteria, it is the basic criterion for templates. Templates do not include links to topics that do not exist. Templates are for navigation between articles. If the article does not exist, it should not appear on a nav template, because that is not the purpose of templates. See all over this TfD page, where templates are deleted for not having links to articles, having links to non-existent articles. All nav templates work this way. All nav templates are this way, we don't list everything just because only articles matter in a template. It is not misleading to indicate that only certain topics have articles, it is how all nav templates work. Nav templates cannot work any other way. Creating a redirect and adding that redirect to the category, and making sure all pages are sorted properly are all other types of maintenance, and not related to the template itself, per CLN. Indeed, if the template is misleading for not having entries for non-existent article then the same can be applied to categories that don't hold non-existent articles to standards that have no articles. Isn't it just as misleading to not have every standard in the category? Isn't it the same kind of misleading? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2015 (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:British Albanians

 * 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. Alakzi (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Does not fit into an existing template scheme as far as I can tell. It serves the same function as Category:British people of Albanian descent and is better suited as a list. Nymf (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * British Albanians
 * delete, better to just use a category and/or list article. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2015 (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:Ce-flux

 * 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. Alakzi (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC) This template is not used on any pages (this can be confirmed by seeing which en wp pages the image is used on). Deleting this would be removing unnecessary wp infrastructure. For background to this template see discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2012. DexDor(talk) 05:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC) (Link updated DexDor(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Ce-flux
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2015 (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:British passports

 * 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 keep. Alakzi (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC) A somewhat convoluted template of specialist interest useful to a very few, except perhaps in Hong Kong; certainly not those in the United Kingdom. Largely created by two persons who do not live in the United Kingdom or the rest of the British Islands (where the vast majority of holders and bearers of British passports presumably still live). I hate to sound this as a personal criticism, and I am no doubt far from faultless myself, even in the course of my edits within Wikipedia, but the fact is, their knowledge of the subject, in fact, seem somewhat limited, given that they obviously do not know that passports, issued either by the Lieutenant-Governors of the Crown Dependencies on behalf of the Passport Offices of the executive branch of the respective Assemblies ("States") (or the Passport Office of the respective Government, in the case of the Isle of Man) of those Crown Dependencies, or by the Governors of the British Overseas Territories (directly; or perhaps indirectly, in the case of Gibraltar and of the Falkland Islands) on behalf of the Passport Offices of the respective Governments of those British Overseas Territories, since they are not passports issued by sovereign and independent Countries, they are not referred to by the names of those Crown Dependencies or British Overseas Territories in the adjective instead of the noun. It is certainly going to take me a good few hours to clean it all up this morning (in BST), which I certainly can do without! I think, personally, that, it probably started off as a expansion of a WP:Content fork for the British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) status (GBN) and the British National (Overseas) passport, which had since gone a little out of hand. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * British passports
 * Comment it's a template, not a CFORK; it navigates between different articles on "British Passports" and those places with customs unions with UK (such as the Crown personal unions), so... it seems to serve its purpose. Most of the articles are called British Passport (xyz) so conform to the nominal topic. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to do what it says. If you dispute the content of the various articles, delete those first, the come back here when you've deleted the articles. If you believe that the Crown Possessions should not be listed... then that's an issue for debate here. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2015 (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:Orthopaedic Eponyms

 * 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 at Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 12. Alakzi (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC) I propose this navbox is replaced by either a list or a category system. It does not provide any navigational benefit as currently stands. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Orthopaedic Eponyms
 * Delete per nom. A list might be appropriate (e.g. like the other lists at Medical eponyms, but that's tagged under GNG). Medical conditions (etc) should be categorized by characteristics of the topic - not by characteristics of the/a name used to refer them. DexDor(talk) 05:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * move to Orthopaedic eponyms and reformat as a list article. Frietjes (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2015 (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.