Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 24

< June 23	June 25 >

June 24

Template:10 International best friends of China

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:10 International best friends of China (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems like a WP:HOAX to me. It's at best original research. There's no concept or term found for this that appears outside wikipedia or webpages that duplicate wikipedia. All the included articles does not make a mention of this. Cold Season (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2014 (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:USCensus-2010CA

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 deleted by DeltaQuad, so the result is delete! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USCensus-2010CA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Entirely unnecessary hard-coded example of text. Suggest substitution and deletion of the template. Then if there is interest, there can be separate disclaimers for the individual sources but I think it should just be subst and deleted right now. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably replace with {{Cite American Factfinder}} to deliver people right to the source of the data. --Netoholic @ 21:19, 24 June 2014 (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:Geographic reference

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geographic reference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following the deletion review, I'm relisting this for discussion. This was last discussed in detail years ago, but I think it's worth another look. The template links to nine different US references and one in India. As the RFC shows, there is consensus for using new templates for each of the citations with the *ultimate* intent of deleting it (it will likely be around for years in the holding cell or kept as historical), so call it a merger if you want instead of a deletion.

Currently, zero parameters exist and each reference goes to the main or generic search page and not to any subpages (which seems to have been considered an intentional feature not an oversight). Prior to this documentation change, all citations to GR|r2 were identified as obsolete. Instead of being able to easily find the approximately 37k references, we are left trying to parse through the entire dataset (see here) with massive errors. This is not a productive use of resources for very little gain.

I want to list it here given the speedy keep closure from before. This may be a bad idea but let me try to make suggestions to emphasize my point. Afterwards, I propose having another RfC (or maybe one per citation) to discuss each citation but I would to discuss substitution.

Suggest that, as a policy, GR|r2 and GR|r8 (which link only to the general search box, be replaced with Template:Cite American Factfinder.
Suggest replacing GR|r4 with Template:Cite gnis
It seems like GR|r5 goes to a deadlink and Template:GEOnet2 is the correct link. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding {{GR|8}}, I would rather not replace that with Template:Cite American Factfinder, which only has data for 2000, while the current FactFinder has 2010 data as well as more recent estimates (although it is still just a search box). Kennethaw88 • talk 22:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What citation template is used for 2010 data then? -- Netoholic @ 02:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going from 2010 United States Census, none do it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (after subst) - This template produces lazy references. Citations should be specific, detailed, and accurate as possible, linking as directly as possible to external information, not to domain or a search result. It doesn't matter that citations might be inconstant between pages, what matters is accuracy. Putting {{cite web}} directly on each page will encourage accuracy. For this template to stay, it must be reworked to accept parameters for the actual record on the .gov websites, and deliver clickers to that data directly. The alternative templates Ricky81682 gave above are the kind we should be using. -- Netoholic @ 21:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, many pages have been linked directly to the census data, instead of just the directory pages, which has resulted in broken links such as http://www.census.gov/tiger/tms/gazetteer/county2k.txt and http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_counties_national.txt (basically the data listed at {{GR|1}}). One (perhaps unimportant) advantage of the current system is that even if the individual pages are moved, the search pages are less likely to move, so there's no need to go back through and fix all the links. Kennethaw88 • talk 22:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the pages get moved, then as long as the template uses identifiers, we can usually adjust the template and make it work again. But that isn't primarily our job. When we cite a book, and a new edition comes out changing the page numbers, we don't have to adjust all the references. "Retrieved on" is included in citations exactly because Wikipedia can't always keep up with changes out in the world, so we reference specific information at a specific date. -- Netoholic @ 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean fix it to this archive version? That does not seem particularly difficult to handle and a bot (or autowikibrowser better) could do the replace (which would easier with a separate template or no template than this). Further, the failure of many pages to list the directory pages (which makes sense if the template used does not allow for a link to the directory page) does not support continuing that methodology further. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, but no hurry in replacing it. when it is replaced, I would prefer to see each usage replaced with a more specific reference. for example, a link to the actual entry for the locality on census.gov. Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and substitute if you want, though more specific references largely work, and are more convenient. —PC -XT + 00:29, 15 July 2014 (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:BronxParks

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BronxParks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following the guildelines, this template, used on a single page, is being used to store article content. Suggest substitution of the template onto the page. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Netoholic @ 21:26, 24 June 2014 (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:WikiProject Historic Homes

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Historic Homes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a template of a WikiProject attempt that has been marked as defunct, and its scope is now covered by another WikiProject/Taskforce. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force#Template:WikiProject Historic Homes. ELEKHH^T 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The project never really got off the ground, and the new task force is off to a good start. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also when this template is deleted, please speedy delete related categories at Category:Historic Homes articles by quality and Category:Historic Homes articles by importance. --ELEKHH^T 11:39, 25 June 2014 (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:Original Thai Premier League Club

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Original Thai Premier League Club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not sure of the need for this navbox. this template already covers the current season's competing teams. This template covers only those in the initial season. Unclear why readers would need to navigate based on this criteria and it just seems to add to Navbox clutter within Thai football clubs as demonstrated here. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - serves no purpose. At most I'd suggest a merge with {{Thai Premier League}}, creating a new section called 'Former teams' similar to {{Premier League}}. Giant Snowman 11:45, 24 June 2014 (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.