Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 6



Template:GBLinks

 * 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. Per 's suggestion, I am creating a via template which will allow for different sources to be included inline with the actual reference. Once it reaches working status the GBLinks template scna be removed and Via added to the relevant links. Primefac (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Delete or re-code and re-scope: This template adds the following note the top of a "References", "Sources", "Footnotes", or "Further reading" section:
 * GBLinks

It is not possible to guarantee that all books cited in any section full of reference/citations will consist exclusively of public-domain (or open-licensed) works freely available in full text as described by this template. Any of billions of people in the world can add any new source at any time. The vast majority of available sources, even for topics pre-dating the copyright cutoff year, are not free, full-text sources in such archives. Generally only primary sources are available in this manner, and WP articles should not rely heavily upon these, as a matter of the policy I just linked to.

If a template like this is needed, it needs to be made more concise, site-specific (,, etc., or perhaps , etc. ), and used inline in singular, specific citations, e.g.:. An output of "(Full text via Google Books.)" would be entirely sufficient.

I actually agree something like would be useful (Google Books, for one, requests such attribution in return for the amount of resources it has thrown into its digitization project). It should be meta-templated so that it can be used for other forms of "via" attribution of this sort – many of the paywall keys we're given via WP:LIBRARY are granted with the expectation that the databases we're using to find these sources will be credited, but this is presently a hassle to do manually. It would be nice to be able to do and to generate something like "(Subscription required. Access provided to Wikipedia editors by Oxford Scholarship Online.)", or whatever is needed for the case at hand; the WP:LIBRARY people can just update a   list of what the output should be.

That said, I'm not sure saving and reworking this simplistic template is the best way to do that. Given that it's already been deployed at the of various refs sections, it may be better to simply delete it and then create a new inline meta template for this. I'll be happy to do that myself. No code in the extant template needs to be salvaged. My quote of it's output above is all it does.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Replace with an inline template per nom. I would suggest deprecating it to make the change, but it's only used on 20 pages right now, which should be a small enough number to fix manually. I don't think it really matters whether it's done via editing the template to work differently and then moving it, or creating a new template and deleting the old one; this is going to go to the holding cell if people agree with the nom, and whoever ends up doing the work can figure out the best way to fix it. --ais523 21:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * delete or rewrite as an inline template as suggested. given the very small number of transclusions, deleting seems to be the better option.  but, I would support rewriting it to be less verbose, and inline-attached to the citation in question. Frietjes (talk) 21:06, 6 November 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).

Template:AnarionHeirs

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC) This no longer serves the purpose of navigation post-merge of a number of the articles listed here. I have subsequently merged the links on this template to Template:Middle-earth. Izno (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * AnarionHeirs

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * delete, now that the links have been merged with Template:Middle-earth, this is redundant. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 6 November 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).

Template:IsildurHeirs

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC) This no longer serves the purpose of navigation post-merge of a number of the articles listed here. I have subsequently merged the links on this template to Template:Middle-earth. Izno (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * IsildurHeirs

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * delete, now that the links have been merged with Template:Middle-earth, this is redundant. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 6 November 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).

Template:Indian launch systems

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Do we need this when Template:Indian space programme already has all the link included? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indian launch systems
 * redirect, this is redundant. Frietjes (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete ambiguous naming, "launch system" isn't specific to rocketry -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * delete, this is redundant and redirect is not required because both the templates are on same pages. standardengineer (talk) 11:38, 8 November 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).