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. There is a clear consensus that this template provides a cumbersome way of doing something which is deprecated by the MOS. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No use that I can see, not even sure why it was created? Avicennasis @ 20:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, its purpose is to enter curly double quotes. By using ((subst:Q"|curl=l)), one can create a left curly double quote, for example, instead of having to look for it in the symbols bar. See also ((Q')) for single quotes. Since the switch function is not substed though, the template's usefulness as-is is limited. PleaseStand(talk) 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Corrected 22:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the matter that curly quotes are in general still discouraged unless a page already uses them prevalently, when one would be able to copy/paste them anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And single quotes are also discouraged. Note that anyone can use the regex gadget to get rid of the curly quotes in an article in one click. Mostly, the curly quotes are because someone copied text from a word processor. PleaseStand(talk) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--mono 05:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the MoS deprecates curly-quotes, thus there's no reason to make them easier to enter by means of this template. --Cybercobra(talk) 07:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cumbersome method of doing something that's discouraged anyway. ~ mazcatalk 19:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because curly quotes are discouraged, this template served no useful purpose. Airplaneman ✈ 04:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Q'
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. There is a clear consensus that this template provides a cumbersome way of doing something which is deprecated by the MOS. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No use that I can see, not even sure why it was created? Avicennasis @ 20:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, its purpose is to enter curly single quotes. By using ((subst:Q'|curl=l)), one can create a left curly single quote, for example, instead of having to look for it in the symbols bar. See also ((Q")) for double quotes. Since the switch function is not substed though, the template's usefulness as-is is limited. PleaseStand(talk) 21:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Corrected 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion on ((Q")). PleaseStand(talk) 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion.--mono 05:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cumbersome method of doing something that's discouraged anyway. ~ mazcatalk 19:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Airplaneman ✈ 04:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 Procedural close as the prior TFD just closed 5 days ago. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Qc
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 and possibly redirect to ((Quebec)) or something related to Quebec. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Qujing
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. Template has been superseded and is now unused. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Year in 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was Delete The competing structural arguments do not, on balance, convince me that we need this template. Its usage is at best opaque, which tips the balance in favour of deletion, since it is the essence of a Wiki that it's "quick and easy", and in the absence of a cogent argument for retention, sorry, it goes. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned Template, currently not seeing any use Avicennasis @ 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless I'm missing something, appears to be an artifact of some initiative or other that never got off the ground. Unused and unlikely to be in the future. ~ mazcatalk 19:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with mazca; it's unlikely to be used and is currently orphaned. Airplaneman ✈ 04:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The editors above appear not to have looked at the template's source code, which includes a hidden comment at the top: "This page employs the ((year in country)) template. Please subst: this template if you want to use it." Since its uses are substed, the template will inevitably appear to be unused, but it seems to me to be a simple and handy way of creating the outline structure for a year-in-country article. If it assists even a few editors in creating these valuable chronological index articles, it should be kept. No suggestion has been made that this template does any harm; it doesn't clutter up articles or break the MOS, or anything bad; it just helps editors create article in a standard format. I hope that the closing admin will discount the above good-faith !votes, which appear to have been based on a lack of scrutiny. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it is clear that this template should have no transclusions, and is used to help start new articles. However, I would say using it is not a good idea, and as far as I can tell it is not being used. (1) It is not linked anywhere, so how is someone supposed to find it? (2) The hatnote includes a horizontal rule, and breaks MOS guidelines, (3) The method for specifying the prior and next year is clumsy, since it is not automatically calculated. So, unless someone can point to clear indication that it is actively being used, then I would say delete. If it is actively being used, then clean it up, link it in somewhere and add some useful documentation, including the ((substituted)) banner. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Ytterbium
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. Consensus is that while the utility of this particular template is marginal, it is useful to editors as part of a series of similar templates. There was some discussion of renaming it, but no consensus on that point, and editors may wish to discuss that idea further on the template's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seem to not be used, no linkbacks showing use... Avicennasis @ 20:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a beyond-trivial text-only substitution. It saves exactly one character when typed. Awesome. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be one of a set of templates useful for writing chemical formulas - see Category:Chemical element symbol templates. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while this particular template doesn't seem to see any use at the moment due to the lack of complex chemical formulae containing ytterbium, it's nonetheless part of a large family of templates (as pointed out by Rick Block) with the potential for utility. It has greater functionality than Chris Cunningham suggests, and I don't see any particular benefit from deleting it. ~ mazcatalk 19:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see why - the rest of the family of templates use the elements' full names, so in my view it's more intuitive to keep the pattern. ~ mazcatalk 01:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for consistency reasons. It is part of a larger group of element templates, presumably for their abbreviations. Airplaneman ✈ 04:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:EPHL Arenas
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. Without prejudice to recreation, but at present template is unused and fails WP:CRYSTALRodhullandemu 00:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is perhaps worth noting that two of the arenas are not counting on the league returning; they will be housing teams in another league this fall. Uvaduck (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This short-lived league appears to be insignificant in the history of the arenas involved, so the use of the template on the articles about those arenas would be giving undue weight to that episode. There is already a list in the head article at Eastern Professional Hockey League (2008–09)#Teams, which is quite sufficient for navigational purposes. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. It can always be recreated if the league returns. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the EPHL website says is that the league will be "relaunched" in 2010. Even if this is more than wishful thinking, there is nothing to indicate what the teams will be or where they will play. So this template is useless for now. --RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already been decided it's not appropriate in the only article that it might possibly be in. If all published private Unicode charts were included, it might be approriate to include somewhere, but the Klingon language Unicode chart doesn't seem to be; that Unicode chart at least serves a recreational purpose. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 22:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who decided that the template is not appropriate for the Phaistos Disc article? It is appropriate and useful to have a Unicode template for all articles on Unicode scripts or other blocks of Unicode characters (see for example the Dominoes article). The Unicode Phaistos Disc template gives the code points for the Phaistos Disc characters, which are not given elsewhere in the article, and so it is useful. Klingon is not encoded in Unicode so of course it does not have a Unicode template. BabelStone (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was previously decided that the unicode characters were not appropriate in the article. Why should the template be any different? And the Klingon language does have a recognized private Unicode character set. It's not in the article, but it does exist. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 23:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, even if it were agreed that the symbol / unicode / description table in the article were appropriate, the Unicode table here adds nothing to the article. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 23:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ -- Unicode characters are already included in the article, as per previous discussion on the Talk page. (As for Klingon, PUA assignments are private and unofficial, and are not recognised by the Unicode Consortium; so it does not count as being encoded in Unicode, and quite rightly is not mentioned in the article.) BabelStone (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Unicode table adds nothing not in the main symbol table which has images, Unicode characters, and descriptions. If you want to add the hex Unicode codes to that table, I have no objections. But the question of whether a template which could only be used in one article should be deleted, is different from the question of whether the table should be in the article, which is what we've been arguing. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 00:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“Recognized” and “private” are contradicting terms in this context. Here is the document from which the uploaders likely copied the bitmap images in the other table. I agree that we don′t need both, and personally I′d get rid of the other (on the general principle that rasterization is always easier than OCR). Keep. ―AoV² 06:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a single use template, I would say substitute and delete. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 17:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a single use template, but it is a member of a very large set of mostly single use templates for Unicode blocks -- see Category:Unicode_chart_templates. These templates simplify and standardize the format of tables displaying Unicode character ranges, and allow editors to conveniently update all the Unicode tables on Wikipedia whenever a new version of Unicode is released (currently about once a year). It would be a very bad idea to "delete and substitute", as the Phaistos Disc table would then be divorced from all the other templates for Unicode chart tables, making maintenance of the Phaistos Disc table a nuisance. BabelStone (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as BabelStone points out, Unicode is updated regularly. Having a template, in this case, would facilitate ease of updating. Airplaneman ✈ 04:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:USLighthouseSources
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 all. Tim Song (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox templates are designed for internal, rather than external, links. These collections of external links violate WP:EL as they are indiscriminately applied to all articles which they are transcluded to. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep...they do not fall under WP:EL because this is a transcluded reference list not a transcluded external list. Various contributors who work with the many lighthouse articles needed a way to transclude the list rather than try to maintain it separately within each individual article...the way in which it had cumbersomely been done before. That is a very good way of doing it, yes? The origins begin in this thread.
I reverted you here on an entirely different subject and now you seem to be taking it personal and deciding to scrutinize me. Why would you delete this hard work? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These are useful and important lists of sources. There was a lot off work that went into these lists, and they are not miscellaneous lists of books, but are a considered and well researched compendium of resources, including links. For anybody who is seriously researching lighthouses in the United States and the affected areas, this are very useful. For anybody to argue that lists should be deleted without regard to their utility is to disregard the needs of our readers and potential readers. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Note that the editors who want to delete these didn't bother to inform any of the contributors. This is convenient. You are giving this question 'a fast trial' like in the Old West, not a considered or "speedy trial" as in Due Process of Law. And you have the temerity to note that someone "canvassed this." Sorry to not go along with the lynch mob. Of course, we can all WP:AGF and just go along to get along. Apparently you don't understand that there are perfect good resources that should be made available to readers, and they can make the decision to use them or not. This is especially so where there are thousands of articles that do not exist in this subject matter, and where the articles that are there are often under researched and devoid of citation. You are treating this as an abstract question without reference to the content, the subject matter, or the articles. With all due respect, this is wrong-headed, and is deleting a group of valuable resources. I would be the first to admit that a lot of time and effort was put into this. I would point out that your studied attempt to keep me -- and all those who might be interested -- uninformed and silent is bizarre. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
My apologies: I should have also notified user:Jameslwoodward, as I didn't realise that he was the original author of several of the co-noms. That said, it appears that he has responded on his talk page anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. If these are just external links, then they fail WP:EL as indiscriminate. If they are supposed to be references, then they are even worse, because these templates mislead the reader about the sourcing of the article by implying that lots of material has been consulted, which is unlikely to be the case for each article. Please use the standard <references> tags to denote which sources have been used for which assertions of fact. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resource lists belong on portal and project pages. Relevant works can be used in a further reading list in an article, but not a shotgun list like this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 16:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a very interesting discussion because, in only four comments so far (now five) the commentators have delved right into one of the major discussions about what Wikipedia "is supposed to be" - is it supposed to be (a) a group of definitive articles which include all of the relevant facts about a subject and exclude everything that does not fit within the frame, or is supposed to be (b) a series of jumping-off places where people who want to learn more can use the articles as starting-points? If the answer is (a), we should consider deleting this template. For my part I am as far on the (b) side as is possible to be, and therefore strongly support keeping these templates as a weapon in the hands of those who would like to learn more about the subject of lighthouses and light stations, especially lighthouse in the specific states enumerated. Remember the Navajo rugs with their spirit lines that lead outside the spaces depicted on the rugs. Bigturtle (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also canvassed. For what it's worth, the answer to the posed question is, to the extent that a loaded question can be given a straight answer, (a). No other part of Wikipedia uses the navbox system to link to dozens of books on subjects because it is expected that the material contained within such books is properly referenced from within our articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox system was chosen so that we did not have to put these sources individually into the articles. In fact, in the case of most of the Michigan lights (We have nearly 100 articles, and potentially 150), they were in individual articles, and we took them out in light of the navbox system. Indeed, there were those who opined that they did not like the clutter in the article. It also has the vast editorial advantage that one can make the change in the navbox and not have to go the individual articles whene something has changed (e.g., a web link). Further, these are set up as 'closed' or hidden'boxes', so that they do not interrupt the flow of the article. If someone wants to avail themselves, they can. If not, they won't be bothered at all. Additionally, if you go to the individual links or books, you might actually be amazed at the content. Of course, if the content off the links is irrelevant to this discussion, then there is no persuading you. If you 'don't want to be confused by the facts' I can certainly understand that. In fact, if you take a look (for example) at White Shoal Light (Michigan) you might see how this works out in practice. It does not purport to be a substitute for references, but is a supplment for those who are interested in "Further reading." 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Stam[reply]
There is no need to use a navbox template around the links if the list is all that is required; however, MOS:SCROLL says that collapsing lists of references are not acceptable. As such, if the templates were to be modified so as to be acceptable MOS-wise, they would simply be lists of sources. The matter then is whether transcluding over a dozen (in some cases) links to books onto large numbers of articles is an acceptable practice. It is not practiced in any other part of the encyclopedia to my knowledge. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The more I hear about this the less I like it. 7&thirteen says this navbox was chosen so that articles do not have to be individually sourced, but per verifiability is hard to establish unless references are used to indicate which source was used for which fact -- that's why there is a lot of emphasis on the use of footnotes. In all the lighthouse articles I have checked, these templates do not appear in the "references" section, which is a good thing -- I really doubt that any of the articles used all 40 sources, and it would be highly be misleading to claim to imply that they had been used if they hadn't. So in the articles I checked, these templates are all in the "further reading" or "external links" section, and that clearly breaches WP:EL's guidance that "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". It's a pity that editors defending these templates appear to be unaware of that guidance. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and it's a pity that commenting editors haven't checked Thumper's contribs at 9:00 on Apr 3 to see that he wasn't happy at being reverted 1, so at 9:05 he decided to try and make trouble for me personally and started this 2. He was quick to accuse me of canvassing (notice that he didn't apologize to me), when in fact he failed to notify the original author and then attempts to brush it off. This is personal and he is unprofessional. If you railroad this crap after you understand its origins then it'll be the last template I ever bother to make...I just don't want pissants hanging over my shoulder. If this had truly had a start in sincere desire to make the Wiki better, I'd have a different take and could approach this more objectively..but if you think he approached this in good faith then you're dense. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's you that's making this personal, not me. I've given what I believe is a valid argument for why these templates are inappropriate, and whether or not I happened to be reverted by you on an unrelated template recently is beside the point. You were, in fact, the original author of the template in question, and it was a genuine mistake on my part that I didn't see that some of the co-noms were by someone else (note that multiple nominations are not automated by Twinkle, so I had to do that part manually; the joys of human error). Is it your opinion that this TfD should be procedurally closed because you've decided I don't like you? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to authorship, Berean took resources that I had developed and put into a whole lot of lighthouse articles as "further reading" -- that was the bais for these templates. These are not "spammy" and are in fact useful to persons who want a larger context for the materials in the articles, or who want to look at other sources. If the rules don't allow any of this, then the rules are being applied in a way that will simply eliminate a good and useful source of information to go away. What was done here was done not only in good faith, but with an eye toward making a better product taht would be of use to readers. Nobody has disputed that these are good and valid sources, or that our readers benefit (or could benefit) from their inclusion. Nobody has addressed the beneficial scope of these templates. I rather doubt that any of you have actually edited a lighthouse article, or looked at all (or even some of) the sources. Templates are a fabulous way of providing information to a wide range or articles, and to permit broad corrections if they become necessary (e.g., as when the U.S. Coast Guard chose to change the form of their URLs). Most of the lighthouse articles that are scattered around the country are short and largely stubby and inadequate. Trying to fix them has been a massive undertaking in an obscure area. Indeed, finding good sources (including on line sources) is difficult and time consuming. This was a backstop for certain researchers/users.
This is a valuable research tool to persons trying to do research in the subject matter. You are dealing with four or five different templates (the Michigan one being the most highly developed). If Woodward thinks that the templates he created are marginal, that speaks to his product, not mine. The U.S. lighthouse resources and the Michigan lighthouse resources are not marginal; and the Maine resources is useful (it has more materials because I put them there). You are being asked to 'throw the baby out with the bath water.' If the rules don't allow this, they should be changed to do so. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Were this the first time that this had ever come up it might be an appropriate time to discuss that, but it isn't; this is far from the first time that someone has decided that it would be useful to create big templates full of external links and include them wherever they might think a reader would feel like doing some extra reading. It is precisely this sort of thing which led to the present state of WP:EL, and rather than these templates being an exception to the rule they're very good examples of why it was created. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now I had hoped to stay out of this, but I've been quoted, so here I am.
First, it might be best if we all agreed to defer this discussion for a month to cool down. user:thumperward is accused of doing this out of spite and is properly chastised for not notifying the creators of all the articles on the list, including me. Further, he has used the word "Canvassed" above as if that was inappropriate. I note that WP:Canvassing permits "Friendly notices" and User:Berean Hunter's note to me was both neutral (as required) and an appropriate substitute for the notice that user:thumperward should have given me as the author of three of the templates. I also think that a month might allow some time to improve the templates as I think they are now marginal, all of them, see below.
Second, I don't think that the templates should be deleted on technical grounds. Although it has been noted that no other subject uses such templates, various places use templates to create references to one or more books. I myself have created both ((cite uscgll)) and ((cite uscghist)) to create refs quickly. I have thought about combining the two, since I use them together on all working lights whose articles I edit. Would that fall under the reasoning cited above -- I don't know. Various books have templates -- ((1911s)) for example. Why not combinations of books?
Third Yes, I think they're marginal -- all of them, including both the US and the Maine templates which Stan mentions. I think that the use of the templates is problematic because either
the works that are in the templates should be referenced individually if they are relevant to the article at hand or
should be in the Lighthouse article and need not be in each individual article. A book on all the lighthouses in Maine is not relevant to an article on one lighthouse.
I note that the US template includes:
the USCG Light List, which, as the primary official reference on every working light in the USA, should be in every article to which it applies and therefore should not be in the template. I have never understood why some of our editors prefer to quote secondary references instead of the Light List.
Maritime Heritage Project. Inventory of Historic Light Stations. National Park Service. 26 Oct. 2006. This is also a primary reference which should be quoted on all lights to which it is applicable.
Two apparently regional books which certainly might be quoted as applicable, but have little to add to out of region articles:
Oleszewski, Wes, Great Lakes Lighthouses, American and Canadian: A Comprehensive Directory/Guide to Great Lakes Lighthouses, (Gwinn, Michigan: Avery Color Studios, Inc., 1998) ISBN0-932212-98-0.
Hyde, Charles K., and Ann and John Mahan. The Northern Lights: Lighthouses of the Upper Great Lakes. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1995. ISBN0814325548ISBN9780814325544.
Russ Rowlett. Rowlett is a wonderful reference, I use him often. But again, either he has useful information for the specific article, in which case he should be in the reflist, or he does not, in which case he should not be in the Further Reading list.
Harrison, Tim, & Jones, Ray, (1999) Lost Lighthouses East Machias, Maine: Globe Pequot Press. ISBN0-00-675526-7; ISBN0762704438; ISBN978-0762704439. An interesting consumer book, but not a scholarly work and, again, a reference that might be quoted on a specific light, but not applicable to lighthouses that are not "lost".
Nine works on various aspects of the history of the Lighthouse Service and the Coast Guard. Some interesting, some pretty dry and formidable, but all better referenced in articles on the Lighthouse Service and the Coast Guard.
The same comments apply to many of the sources cited in Michigan Lighthouse Resources.
If the templates were ruthlessly cut down to works that were scholarly and generally applicable, then I would support them. There are no such works, AFAIK, for any of the New England states. Several of the Michigan sources look like they might pass my test, but most will not. I have no desire to get involved in that process -- others are working hard to create articles for all the Michigan lights, so I'm sticking to the states on the eastern and Gulf seaboard.
I should add, BTW, that a number of the ISBN numbers in the various templates do not work at Amazon. Those who are advocate keeping these templates should clean them up.
So, let's take a month to cool down and clean up the templates, and then if user:thumperward wants to reopen this discussion, so be it.Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The problems are inherent in the conception of the templates, rather than just in their implementation. So I don't see how any cooling-of period will change anything. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated by BrownHairedGirl. External links should be limited to just those most relevant to a particular article, and references should be materials actually consulted for the content of the article. A set of all-purpose lists in templates does not hold to either of these standards. That doesn't mean the content of these templates is useless, however. If one does not already exist, I would recommend creating a "resources" sub-page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses and substituting all of these templates there to create a complete list for use in creating and updating articles. Specific items that are appropriate for individual articles should also remain on those pages as regular ELs or references. So it could be a bit of a complicated delete, but a delete nonetheless. --RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl and RL0919. As has been stated before, a complete list of resources is great for a WikiProject page. However, just pasting a large bundle of references, without making sure that they all directly apply, is not the best idea. This will require some thought to figure out which references are needed in which article, but delete nonetheless, after adding the relevant references to each article. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The template is in violation of WP:EL as this forms a general list of external links that may or may not be relevant any particular article that that template is used in. As for the argument that they references, references need to be spcific to the article and identify what they are supposed to verify. A general template fails all around. If a particular text really is a reference, then it must be properly cited in the refernces section. And as for it being a valuable list of resources, that's a strong argument for the material to be placed as a sub-page in Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses, and not as a template in articles. -- Whpq (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per BrownHairedGirl and Gadget850. In particular, as noted above, the problem is not with the implementation (although there may be problems in that regard, that would not be cause for deletion) but with the basic concept. cmadler (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 Redirect to ((cfr-speedy)) for now, but with no prejudice against nominating at WP:RFD, if someone is against having a redirect Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , or better, redirect to ((Cfr-speedy)) and protect for conformity with all the other db-xx templates. The existence of this template makes out-of-process moves easier, and creates more work over at CfD. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ((Cfr-speedy)) so that the problems described by BrownHairedGirl will be resolved, and contributors habituated to using the old template will not be totally flummoxed. --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given the change in process this template is confusing and misrepresentative. Better to force use of the new process - I was another non-category-savvy CSD admin that was persistently confused by the categories in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_2#Category:1906_IAAUS_College_football_season, and this demonstrates how the C2 template is no longer helpful. I could quite easily have done the same thing that NuclearWarfare did there due to the misleading tags. ~ mazcatalk 19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redirecting to ((Cfr-speedy)) would be OK, but as mazca said above, one name is simpler. Airplaneman ✈ 04:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ((Cfr-speedy)). This has been in use by editors for several years, so keeping a redirect will allow some opportunity to adjust without breaking anyone's attempts at renaming. Also, its documentation still indicates it is used by Twinkle. --RL0919 (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to update TW :) Airplaneman ✈ 00:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.