February 23
Orphaned cite doi templates
- 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 all. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listing just the first ten completed orphaned subpages of Template:cite doi for deletion. These were all just hard-coded instance of cite journal (but T3 was rejected for them) but are orphaned and unused entirely now. There is no substitution needed, just deletion. There is no consensus that a CSD criteria would work so let me try this for now. The template has been deprecated. According to this google spreadsheet explained here, there are roughly 24.8k orphaned cite doi subpages (out of roughly 58.6k in total). It will be easier to go through and substitute and work on the 30k or so in use if all these completely orphaned pages could be deleted (a number of those are just not orphaned because of old cite pmid redirects as well). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I note, why bother with these individual nominations? Just get a bot to do the work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Orphaned_Category:Cite_doi_templates. No response so I assume, no? At CSD talk I was told to try this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database of citations. Not used, and hardcoded instances. Speedy deletion should be done -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unused —PC-XT+ 08:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but as I said elsewhere, we do not need another deletionism campaign against source-specific templates that are liable to be reused (even if it looks like they're not being used; they're often substituted, and [with safesubst] we want them to be, so that cite template maintenance is more thorough). The problem with the above kind of jibberish is that no one's every likely to use them or even know what they are. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:20, 1 March 2016 (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).
Template:Loaded term
- 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) 04:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have enough templates with approximately the same meaning, e.g. ((Peacock term)), ((Weasel-word)). Debresser (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? Could you elaborate your point? HeatIsCool (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It's redundant, the parent non-inline template no longer exists, and neither does the "cleanup" category this was trying to sort into. This is looks like "fine, I'll get my way with templates" PoV-pushing by someone who is not getting what they want at WT:WTW. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:22, 1 March 2016 (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).
- 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 Proposal Fails 4:2 Gimubrc (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)))[reply]
Propose merging Template:Infobox Hindu temple with Template:Infobox religious building.
There is no need to have a separate template. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 18:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What with all the parametres that Infobox religious building doesn't have, like devanagari, sanskrit_translit, tamil, marathi, oriya, malayalam, malay, bengali, chinese, pinyin? Debresser (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- since all those are just names in other languages, we could either (a) just use
|native_name= and ((native name)) with a list of names, or (b) use something like ((Infobox name module)). Frietjes (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- merge, or rather just replace. the multi-language name issue can be addressed using a "name module" or a simple list in the
|native_name= field. Frietjes (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge/replace as largely redundant —PC-XT+ 08:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support leaving off the merge discussion until the Hindu template is improved. It might make things clearer. I'm not sure how easily all these things can be included in a merged template. —PC-XT+ 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The original proposal was to reduce redundancy, but now that more parameters are involved, I think we should try to rewrite the Hindu template as a wrapper of the generic one. If that fails, we should keep them separate. If the wrapper works, we can think about merging them. (This seems more appropriate due to historical reasons rather than due to the current states of templates, which do seem to be largely redundant.) —PC-XT+ 02:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @PC-XT: Rewriting as a wrapper is generally the way a merge is conducted. If we decide to merge and a wrapper cannot be created, then the merge would not be completed (or additional parameters would be added to ((Infobox religious building)) to complete the merge). Rewriting as a wrapper without a merge decision is frowned upon since it influences future TfD discussions. How do you feel about the appropriateness of some of these parameters for an infobox? Many of the parameters in question either can be fit into ((Infobox religious building)) (i.e. Vimanam --> one of the tower parameters) or probably don't belong in an infobox at all (i.e. poets who praised the temple). I'm thinking a lot of this information should be handled in the article body, with the infobox restricted to info about the actual building (i.e. not religious specifics that are not relevant to a general readership). See precedent at this TfD. ~ RobTalk 08:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The current template religious building does not cover Primary deity (linked to the Hindu concept of Moolavar); Consort; poets; utsava_deity_God (festival god); Vimanam; Direction and posture; temple tank; appeared for etc. Some of them can be seen used in Pundarikakshan Perumal Temple, Srinivasa Perumal Temple, Kudavasal, Thillai Nataraja Temple, Chidambaram, Ucchi Pillayar Temple, Rockfort. These parameters exclusively pertain to Hinduism. The problem is when Infobox Hindu temple and Template:Infobox temple were merged; the complete documentation of these parameters from Infobox temple was not updated in the Template Hindu temple (known then as Infobox Mandir). Also, we retain ((Infobox church)) as a separate template due to the additional parameters. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Redtigerxyz's explanation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The Hindu temple has its own identity in many contexts as said by Redtigerxyz and which are missing in current template. The current Hindu Temple Template needs to be added with more info like Moolavar, Vimanam, Teertham(Tank), Pratyaksham, which Agama followed for its daily rituals. It would also be better to replace all regional names with |native_name=. agasthyathepirate (talk)agasthya 18:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge/oppose. I went back and forth on this one. I generally support adding additional parameters to a broad template to cut down on the number of different infobox templates we have in the project, but these parameters are very specific to Hinduism, and we have to balance the other problem - cluttering the documentation of Infobox religious building with niche parameters that are rarely used. Also, the argument for how we handle Infobox church is a good one. If we keep church separate due to additional parameters, we should be consistent and keep this separate as well. ~ RobTalk 02:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge. I changed my mind on this one. The information about native names can be handled as suggested above. The most specific parameters, such as poets who praised the temple, should be pruned from the infobox. Basically, it seems like the parameters that don't fit into ((Infobox religious building)) would all be better handled in the article body. ~ RobTalk 08:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above views.--Vin09 (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2016 (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).