Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 20



Template:Dioism/Scripture

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Deleted by, who apparently forgot to close the discussion. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Unused, created in 2010. Only two edits since then, both to clean up the wikicode. Maintenance burden. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dioism/Scripture
 * Delete not apparently useful. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 12:16, 21 April 2021 (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:Convert to transclusion

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 relisted on 2021 May 7. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Convert_to_transclusion
 * Pages_needing_conversion_to_transclusion
 * 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).

Unused IHL standings

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 - F ASTILY   00:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Unused templates since their creation. Only consists of redlinks to likely NN individual minor team seasons. Probably was created as a test or with plans to make a 1996–97 Grand Rapids Griffins season page based on the creator's edit history. Only use would be in the 1996–97 IHL season page, but it is fine the way it is there. Also there was no "Northeast Division", just a North Division in the Eastern Conference. Yosemiter (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1996–97 IHL Eastern Conference standings
 * 1996–97 IHL Northeast Division standings
 * 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:Merge school

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge school

School specific fork of merge. I've had the associated category, Category:School articles to be merged watchlisted for ages and can't recall the last time I saw it show up and I can say with certainty it wasn't in the past 30 days. The category also has 0 views in the past month indicating that it would ineffective even if the template was used since noone checks the category. This template probably made more sense back when mergers weren't included in article alerts. --Trialpears (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; the article alerts system takes care of this where relevant. --Izno (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2021 (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:Kansas books

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 keep. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Non standard hatnote redundant to See also and should be replaced with. --Trialpears (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kansas books
 * Keep. This is used in the bibliography section of 234 pages, so IMO it does make sense to have this as a custom hat note rather than 234 separate transclusions of See also which may end up diverging over time. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this should just be categorically deleted without replacement; none of its uses are particularly valid. You don't need to navigate to the state's bibliography section from some random sub-state topic's article's see also section; in additional, almost every topic that uses this template already links to Kansas in some other way, so in that context you're missing the point of WP:SEEALSO. Delete without replacement as a first option; delete with as second. --Izno (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep (from User:Sbmeirow)

1) Response to User:86.23.109.101 comment above.


 * I agree this template ensures uniform output in 243 articles, where as "see also" could allow future variations to happen in any of those same articles, per Rationale 3 at Template:Kansas_books.

2) First response to User:Trialpears comment above:


 * A reason behind creating this template was to make it more obvious that books at the link contains information about counties and cities (within thouse counties) too. The output from the "Kansas books" template clarifies it, but the output from the "see also" template is too vague.


 * currently visually expands to...
 * See also: List of books about State of Kansas (which includes historical information about its counties and cities too)


 * would visually expands to... (recommended by User:Trialpears)
 * See also: Kansas § Bibliography

3) Second response to User:Trialpears comment above:


 * A reason behind creating this template is it takes a fraction of the effort to change a link in one template compared to fixing links in 243 articles. At a future date, the current section could get renamed, or may change the link to another existing article, or may change the link to some future new "List of Kansas books" article.


 * Kansas - (current link)


 * California - (at a future date, the "Bibliography" section of Kansas could get renamed to "Further reading", similar to California article)


 * History of Kansas - (at a future date, may want to link to a section in another existing article)

4) Response to User:Izno comment above:


 * Per my #3 response above and per Rationale 4.2 at Template:Kansas_books, at a future date this template might link to another article, which counters you statement "almost every topic that uses this template already links to Kansas". When I originally created this template, I considered linking to History of Kansas, and even now it would only take seconds to change it.


 * Just because articles link to Kansas article, it doesn't mean that readers will know that it contains a Kansas book list, nor will they know the same books contain historical information about the county / count seat / cities, which counters your "delete without replacement" statement. Also, WikiProject Cities/US Guideline counters "delete without replacement" too, because the "Kansas country" articles and "Kansas county seat city" articles use to have 1 or 2 Kansas books listed in their "Further reading" section, but I deleted them when I added this template, thus if this template is deleted, then those books would need to be added back again.  Also, per your "delete with as second", which I translate to mean "delete with replacement", I previously covered that in #2 and #3 above.

5) Possible change to existing template:


 * While writing up this response, I came up with a new idea. I could add 1 or 2 Kansas books inside this template too, which would counter the complaints of this template being nothing more than a special type of "see also".  This isn't my first preference, but it would be better than deleting this template or replacing this template with a generic "see also".

6) History of books in Kansas community articles (counties / cities / unincorporated communities / ghost towns):


 * Before I started editing any Kansas community articles, they contained a mishmash of various combinations of Kansas books and County books in many textual variations.


 * When I started cleaning up Kansas community articles, at some point I started unifying Kansas & Country books in articles by replacing each book entry with a new uniform description.


 * Eventually, after the Nth pass of cleaning up Kansas community articles, I decided to change my approach to simplify the maintenance of all "Further reading" sections...

7) My "New Approach" for books in Kansas community articles (counties / cities / unincorporated communities / ghost towns):


 * I decided to migrate towards a hierarchical approach for books in Kansas community articles, per Be bold. I don't know how many articles that I've changed to this new approach, but most likely it's 50% to 75% of the Kansas community articles (around 1000+ number of articles: 105 counties, 627 incorporated cities, ??? unincorporated communities, ??? ghost towns).


 * As I edit city / unincorporated communities / ghost town articles, I delete county books and move them to the "Further reading" section of the county article, then I add a "See also" link to the same "Further reading" section, thus this action migrates all county books to make them easier to maintain. Also, I delete all State of Kansas books, and city specific books stay in their articles.


 * As I edit 105 county seat (city) articles and some other higher-population cities, I add this template, because State of Kansas history books always have contents about these types of communities.


 * As I edit 105 county articles, I add this template and delete all State of Kansas type books. Also, I delete all State of Kansas books too.

8) When I'm done at some point: A) all of the county books will be in the "Further reading" section of the county articles, and all non-county articles will link to the books in the county "Further reading". B) all of the State of Kansas books will be in the state articles, and all county articles will link to the State of Kansas books via this template. C) The benefits to readers is they can easily migrate up the book hierarchy from city books to county books to state books. D) The benefit to editors (like me) is all of the county books and kansas books are easier to maintain because they are localized instead of spread out and duplicated across hundreds of articles.

• Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 22:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Template is a benefit to Wikipedia readers. At Russell County, Kansas, for example, it provides a quick link to common historical texts about the state and its counties. Non-standard, but uniquely helpful within its specific use. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2021 (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:Quote punctuation

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC) MOS:LQ is not something readers should be confronted with in a banner at the top of an article. Requests for verifying MoS compliance belong to talk pages or a forum like WT:GOCE, where they most likely have a bigger chance of being fulfilled. Nardog (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Quote punctuation
 * Delete c'mon, we don't need cleanup templates for every possible minor issue. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 12:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an extraordinarily minor issue that does nor require a clean up notice to tag. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2021 (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).