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).
Almost unused, doesn't seem unique, not totally sure what the purpose of this is. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The template was placed to present overview information of the 30 different rooms described on the page, which at one point were being considered to be broken out into individual articles. The information contained in the templates for each room should be moved into the article or an equivalent table before any deletion. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2018 (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 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn with none of the participants advocating for deletion. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This Template is no longer needed as Wikipedia has updated.
— BrandonALF(talk)(Please ping me) 13:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure I understand in what relevant way Wikipedia has updated. There are still plenty of Wikiprojects which use the B-criteria on talk banners in the format that ((B)) is designed for – see for example ((WikiProject Albums)), which I came across recently. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note this is a substituted template, hence the lack of transclusions. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2018 (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:Ireland Motorway Service Stations
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 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).
Motorway service stations in the United Kingdom
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).
Delete all as redundant and unused. Ajf773 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2018 (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).
Module:Preview warning
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 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:Pre-1911 Chinese Military
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 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 keep. As with the closure of the linked RFC, usage of this template should make sense and lead to a page that provides accurate information (or to quote that close, that it meets Wikipedia rules of reliability). Edge cases as discussed in the nomination and subsequent discussion should be dealt with on the related article's talk page. There is no prejudice against renomination if a future RFC determines that WikiData should not be linked to in the article space (or similar outcome that would have the same effect). Primefac (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For context, there was a recent consensus that Wikidata should not be linked to within the body of the article.[1] In general, a Wikidata item is a really lousy and confusing destination to send a reader. To grab the first three "what links here" pages using this template:
Those pages are likely to confuse the heck out of any typical reader, and I defy anyone to seriously argue that those pages contain any content which is reasonable or useful for anyone other than a Wikidata-editor.
To the extent that any of these links lead to a page which might contain some shred of plausibly useful information, the link will be confusing and also almost inevitably run afoul of WP:ELNO #1 as a site which does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page.Alsee (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] Keep The nominator has selectively chosen three uses of the template which are edge cases; ignoring uses on articles about identifiers, like VIAF, International Standard Book Number (where I have just reverted the nominator's premature removal of the template), or International Standard Name Identifier. The template also has over a hundred uses outside of article space (for example in template documentation). And the linked discussion did not consider cases such as this; which are not in the body text of an article, but are more analogous to ((Commons category)) and other sister-project links near the foot of articles. Finally, WP:ELNO - rightly - does not concern itself with links to sister projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andy MabbettI severely object to your bad faith accusation. I did not selectively choose edge cases. As I stated, the examples I listed were the first entries that showed up on the template's "what links here" results. Regarding use in template documentation, I didn't notice that. I have no objection to a result to remove the template from article space. Alsee (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; in use and has some purpose both in and outside article space. Jc86035 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to a delete, or restriction to non-mainspace. The utility of this particular invocation of Wikidata (as a general proponent) seems fairly-to-nearly 0 for the general reader as they serve barely a curiosity in their respective articles, and they certainly aren't necessary to edit some content appearing in the article.
I might see something similar as an interesting addition to list articles (or, say, a place article), as Wikipedia has consigned Magnus's bot to the non-mainspace--this might be useful to point the way to "here are some topics which should be included in this list" or "here is another way to provide interesting information for this list", but that's an entirely separate (and actually-useful) template. --Izno (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikidata is one of the Wikimedia sister projects. This is a usual sister project link such as ((commons category)). Just as external links are not to be used in the body of an article but put into the "External links" section, this template is placed in the "External links" section and is not covered by the close of the RFC cited. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StarryGrandma, rationale makes sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, erring with caution, as I'm lean toward StarryGrandma's rationale and I'm mindful of use outside of article space. However, Alsee's point about the Wikidate pages themselves not being reader-friendly gives me pause before prescribing broad usage (even in external links); I couldn't find an easy way to see all relationships using a given property, and I'm not sure why else a reader would want to visit the properties rather than the items. There are probably reasons that I'm not thinking of or which the examples don't adequately reflect, but if there is not always a valid reason that readers need to see the link but mapping is still usefulness to the projects, it may be helpful to add a parameter that makes the template hidden. —Ost (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The design change felt unusual to me because I didn't realize the data contained on Wikidata Talk pages or that it was common to link to them. I do agree that those pages and this change is in the interest of being more reader-friendly. —Ost (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the update of the template, and the clarifications following my misunderstanding of Wikidata. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]Delete or repurpose: Wikidata would be very confusing for most users, and editors who actually want to see the Wikidata entry can use the "Wikidata item" link in the sidebar (under Tools). (I understand this won't work on mobile, but mobile users already have much bigger concerns when editing WP.) It's not clear why we would want a template pointing to Wikidata for these specific ~300 articles, rather than every article which has a Wikidata entry (i.e. almost every one of our 5,000,000+ articles, I believe). The only usage I can think for this is if a page corresponded to multiple Wikidata items, we would want to link them all in this template. For instance, the cardinality example given has two Wikidata items. However, the current template does not even allow linking to multiple items (the template has to be used multiple times), so currently it is of no use and should be deleted unless it is overhauled for this new purpose. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Users can't just use the sidebar link to view this data. The sidebar link goes to items (though I'm unsure how this works with the newer lexemes), while this template links to Wikidata properties. —Ost (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies. I’ll withdraw my !vote as I’m now quite ambivalent about whether the template is useful. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 06:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I’m now happy to support usage of the template. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The VIAF example given by user:Pigsonthewing as a keep-example is more a delete-example. VIAF is an "authority file", but the there is no property in Wikidata for VIAF. There is one for VIAF ID. Link to item page via left hand navigation is sufficient. From there anyone interested can find the property. 92.228.156.107 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on why that example would be a delete example? There's no Wikipedia article on VIAF ID and I would reasonably expect that the identifier of VIAFs would be covered in the VIAF article. As such, I don't see a reason why linking to a VIAF ID property from that page would be inappropriate. Even if it is, that doesn't automatically turn it into a delete-example for the template; there are other alternatives it can become, such as remove-from-article-example or clarify-appropriate-use-example. —Ost (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could not find the OP quote Wikidata should not be [...] in a closure concluding consensus. I did find an other RfC closure: Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC, the formal closing of this RfC is here.
Assuming this is the right closure, I want to quote the Summary of the Closure (included in it): There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia if Wikipedians can be assured that the data is accurate, and preferably meets Wikipedia rules of reliability. For the other issues raised within this RfC, there was no clear consensus. So, by this there is a possibility that Wikidata is used in an article body (including infoboxes). So I don't understand how the OP Alsee can conclude that Wikidata shall never appear in body texts. OP also says: In general, a Wikidata item is a really lousy [...]. That might be true, but the "in general" is another escape for situations where Wikidata is not lousy etc and fully accepted. So the premisse is not correct, therefrom the conclusion to delete is not.- DePiep (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following my Comment above (Wikidata is not fully banned from body texts), unless I learn otherwise the Template should stay for these accepted situations (plus, obviously, for use outside of non-article body places). - DePiep (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: The OP's quote is in the first paragraph of the RfC they linked [2], not the one you're looking at. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. What & where is the closing conclusion of that RfC? -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The diff linked. To quote: Maneuvering through the crux of the !votes, there seems to be a numerical as well as a policy-based consensus in favor of implementation of a slightly nuanced version of Option 1 i.e. Wikidata should not be linked to within the body of the article except in the manner of hidden comment(s) as to mentioning the Q-number.Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing and contradicting RfC's then, to say the least. (Not the least is: what a mess, and how impractical). Anyway, my Keep !vote stays, also per StarryGrandma. -DePiep (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ((Wikidata property)) is used in the template namespace. It should not be deleted because of its use in the article namespace. If there is a consensus against adding Wikidata links in articles, just remove the template from the articles in question and/or update the template so it displays nothing when used in the article namespace. -- Zyxw (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2018 (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:Halo Wars tracklist
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 merge then delete. Note that this "deletion" will require moving it to a subpage so that attribution can be given. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Single-article use. WP:VGSCOPE tends away from tracklists also (within the past few years), but this is used in an FA which has significant commentary. Izno (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the article, then delete. if the content isn't needed, it can be removed from the article as well. but, merging first will save it in the edit history. Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2018 (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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep, seems fine to me. Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:@Brad101:WP:NOTAVOTE
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2018 (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).