Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 3



Template:S.L. Benfica Futsal 2009–10 UEFA Futsal Cup champions

 * 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 ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC) We do not have 'champions' or historical squad templates in football/futsal, see e.g. Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2. GiantSnowman 19:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * S.L. Benfica Futsal 2009–10 UEFA Futsal Cup champions
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per prior established consensus and per nom. — Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 09:45, 10 October 2016 (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:Directory country

 * 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 to User:TheGrappler/Directory country (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Unused in any namespace other than one user's user space subpages. Due to lack of use in other namespaces and unclear instructions about how to use this template, I recommend either deletion or userfying this template by moving it to User:TheGrappler/Directory country without leaving a redirect (and updating the 3 transclusions of this template.) Steel1943  (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Directory country
 * Userfy per the nom. --Izno (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2016 (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:External link

 * 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 consensus is that there are available substitutes which are acceptable replacements (if not perfect replacements) and that the cons of keeping this template outweigh the marginal cost of using those replacements. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Created in 2009 and still labelled "currently for experimental/testing purposes only." Has 1,898 transclusions (a tiny, tiny proportion of our external links), mainly through its use in templates.
 * External link

In Bugatti, for instance it uses  where , which has 16 fewer characters, would suffice. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete For bots that work on external links (there are many) it would require special handling to parse the template and write it out. My guess is most bots don't know this template exists and the links are passed by unprocessed (such as dead link and archive checkers). The template has no option for archiveurl for example if a link is dead. If an external link template is used, preferably it would be which is better supported by the CS1 standard (including by third party tools). In fact, recommend making the conversion for the 1898 instances with a bot, in Bugatti to see how they compare:
 * Almost exactly the same (the later has "quotes" around the title). This template has some options cite web doesn't but that could be worked out with a bot that does conversions to plain text. BTW I'm having trouble finding where the template is used due to transclusions 'What Links Here' doesn't work. -- Green  C  12:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost exactly the same (the later has "quotes" around the title). This template has some options cite web doesn't but that could be worked out with a bot that does conversions to plain text. BTW I'm having trouble finding where the template is used due to transclusions 'What Links Here' doesn't work. -- Green  C  12:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost exactly the same (the later has "quotes" around the title). This template has some options cite web doesn't but that could be worked out with a bot that does conversions to plain text. BTW I'm having trouble finding where the template is used due to transclusions 'What Links Here' doesn't work. -- Green  C  12:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost exactly the same (the later has "quotes" around the title). This template has some options cite web doesn't but that could be worked out with a bot that does conversions to plain text. BTW I'm having trouble finding where the template is used due to transclusions 'What Links Here' doesn't work. -- Green  C  12:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost exactly the same (the later has "quotes" around the title). This template has some options cite web doesn't but that could be worked out with a bot that does conversions to plain text. BTW I'm having trouble finding where the template is used due to transclusions 'What Links Here' doesn't work. -- Green  C  12:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment from template creator. This template came about after discussions such as this, this, and others. I marked this template as experimental when I wrote it in 2009. No one has apparently ever felt the need to edit its documentation to remove the notice. If the notice bothers you, please feel free to edit the documentation subpage and remove it. The template was never intended to be used in place of simple links that could be produced using brackets. I suggest reading the template's code and documentation. If this template is being used in certain cases where brackets would be more appropriate, then it should be replaced in those cases with simple brackets. It's also quite possible this template should be renamed. It has uses, but with its current name, it might be prone to overuse. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For example it duplicates (158660 count) and most of its features are found in  such as language, subscription, registration, type and format. It does have a feature template which is useful though not sure how widely used and not critical.  --  Green  C  15:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your arguments are fundamentally flawed. official does not duplicate the functionality of this template, hence the prior discussions regarding a meta template to handle special case external links. cite web also does not duplicate its functionality and should never be nor was it ever intended to be used for general purpose use for external links. Citation templates have a massive amount of overhead compared to much smaller single/special purpose templates which is why we have both. I'm speaking as someone who is intimately familiar with the internal working of the citation templates.  --Tothwolf (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough re: cite web. Learn something new every day. I've redacted the suggestion. It seems like a fork of official that I don't understand even after reading the discussion. If you need more than official provides than use a plain text entry (no template). Or work to integrate features into the official template. Question: you mentioned the documentation contains information of how the template is meant to be used but I don't see it (other than syntax). Is it mostly meant to be used from within other templates (which seems to be the cases)? Thanks. -- Green  C  21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At the time this template was written, official was a very very simple link wrapper template with a total of 107 bytes:   I'm not really sure official should have ever been expanded to the point it is now, because it has a very high number of transclusions which will never make use of all the additional functionality and associated overhead. The fact that it was converted from a very simple link wrapper into a complex Lua module itself is somewhat troubling. I'm not necessarily opposed to merging some of the functionality of external link into official, its just that I'm not sure this is the best way to go. We had a lot of discussions about this stuff in 2009 spread out over a lot of talk pages. It could be that we should really be looking at going the other way, and simplify official and have a different Lua-enabled link wrapper template along the lines of external link (possibly under a different name to avoid overuse) to be used only for the more complex use cases. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the former discussion, User:Thumperward told you if the current wording is "never ideal" then it should be changed, not worked around with new flags or template forks or whatever. There is nothing there that justifies the existence of this template. Even so, there is still the issue that a mere 1,898 transclusions in seven years shows that the community has "voted with its feet" on the use of this template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * comment, somewhat indifferent to the deletion of this template in the cases that it uses all three input parameters (url, link label, and "at"). when it uses only two input parameters (url and link label), it seems somewhat pointless.  I fixed two templates which were using this instead of citation or with only two input parameters (clearly overkill).  so, as a result, the transclusion count has dropped to around 300-350 250-275. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's definitely a move in the right direction. external link was never intended to be used the way it had been used in templates like bugatti. More in reply to Andy above, as far as transclusion counts go, we have lots of useful external link templates with low transclusion counts. For example, sourceforge (194) and freecode (134). Even dmoz (7276) has but a fraction of what official has. A low number of transclusions does not necessarily mean a template is useless or has no purpose. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My argument is not that the number of transclusions is low, but that the percentage of potential uses is so low that it shows that the community prefers not to use this template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Even in cases with all three parameters, removing the template . What useful purpose does it serve? I've not seen any argument here that it has one. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I really thought the template's documentation was self explanatory. Here are a few examples:                This template was never intended to be used as a general purpose link wrapper. It was intended to be used for these type of special cases. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Or even:    ...which is something other templates like official cannot do. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: We have acceptable substitutes using the normal link syntax, free-text for websites requiring some special software for viewing, and the templates link language and subscription required. --Izno (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Those don't really replace it either. Putting the suggested templates side by side shows the clear visual differences:     Example   In addition to that, those still don't replace all of the other functionality of external link. If they did, we would not have had discussions about this years ago, leading to the creation of this template. I still don't understand why this stuff wasn't brought up on the template's talk page instead of a process such as xfd, since these sort of concerns really should have been raised there first. xfd is not the place to suggest changes to content/templates and the adversarial and "guilty until proven innocent" nature of xfd (along with 3 relists for this particular template now) doesn't lead to improvements. Beyond that, I have to bow out of this xfd at this point. If anyone wishes to contact me further about this or any other template's I've worked on, please leave me a note on my talk page or send me an email. I simply have far too much going on these days and lack the time to fully participate in xfd. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I said "acceptable substitute", not "replace". I just did a double-check of the template and basically find no reason to keep it, even after your encouragement re "other functionality". 300 transclusions after 6 years of existence? --Izno (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and again, around we go in circles. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a complex, special use or special purpose template having a low number of transclusions. I absolutely can see how renaming this template (if someone can come up with a better name) might be a good idea to avoid people misusing it again as had been done when it was transcluded in bugatti, but a "low" transclusion count alone does not make a template useless or worthless. We don't delete other special purpose templates when they have "low" transclusion counts, so I fail to see the logic in your argument. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2016 (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).