- 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) 00:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
unused and redundant to the navbox version. 198.102.153.1 ( talk) 22:35, 30 May 2014 (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). 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 relisted on 2014 June 8 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:!mark ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:!!mark ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- 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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
No longer useful as a navigational template. Until the recent elections, there were 12 Liberal Democrat MEPs, and this template navigated between them. Now there's only one, it's not much of a navbox. I wouldn't object to it being expanded to cover 'current and former Liberal Democrat MEPs', but as it stands it serves no use. Robofish ( talk) 22:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no useful purpose being served here. -- Nizolan ( talk) 17:51, 2 June 2014 (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). 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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate; station used is Orlando Int'l Airport, which {{ Orlando weatherbox}} also uses. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 21:55, 30 May 2014 (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). 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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
redundant to {{ infobox award}} (I replaced it). Frietjes ( talk) 15:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. In fact it can be speedy-deleted under T3. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
17:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Might as well not tag it now: both venues take at least 7 days before a deletion action can be taken. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 30 May 2014 (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). 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 to delete, but it seems as though there has been some work to merge/refactor the templates. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:R no print ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Delete The rationale of this template is At some point in the future, Jimmy Wales wants to make a printed version of the full Wikipedia encyclopedia. He wanted to do that in 2003/2004. In 2014 this sounds more like Printing Out The Internet, and no sane person would want to do that. CorrectKissinTime ( talk) 13:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Is this template not used for any other purposes? Wikipedia excerpts are occasionally being printed; are we sure its deletion is not going to affect those? Are there perhaps any automated services which rely on this template being there (not necessarily for printing, but for maintenance tasks)?—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); May 30, 2014; 15:36 (UTC)
- Keep per the explanations below.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); May 30, 2014; 19:09 (UTC)
Convert to redirect to Template:R unprintworthy. In fact, I'm a bit shocked that this title doesn't redirect there already. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I've crossed out my vote above, pending the answer to my next question:Paine Ellsworth (template creator), could you explain what distinguishes this template {{ R no print}} from the template {{ R unprintworthy}}? Steel1943 ( talk) 17:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Vote restored. However, as mentioned below, the redirect loop on {{ Redirect template}} needs to be resolved prior to the retargeting happening. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)- Vote changed to keep as is. Please see below for details. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep as is.Change !vote (See below)This template is used in a master template. In answer to Steel1943's question, I created this rcat and its pal, {{ R yes print}} to be used within template {{ Redirect template}}, because if either {{ R printworthy}} or its pal, {{ R unprintworthy}}, both of which use Redirect template, are used, then an undesirable template loop is created. Couldn't have that, so I created these two to avoid the template loop. I thought I was clear in the template documentation; however, it appears that I was not. As for the nom's rationale, they did not include the link to printed version. That link explains the need for these types of redirect category templates (rcats). That link is to a previous version of the project page to show Jimbo's direct involvement; and when the "Project page" link at the top is clicked, it will be seen that this project, to publish a full, printed version of Wikipedia articles (no, not the whole internet), is still quite active.– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- @ Paine Ellsworth: I essentially get your point about the technical reasons behind the creation of this template. But, as you most likely know, having a situation where multiple templates provide the same function is very undesirable. Can you think of any possible way to resolve the "loop" issues to allow the use of only one of these templates, preferably {{ R unprintworthy}} since it's older? (You're essentially one of the English Wikipedia's WP:RCAT specialists, so I'm sure you have thought of this already, but I'm curious why it could not be done; I may be able to provide some input/assistance.) Steel1943 ( talk) 17:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- When I encountered the template loop in {{ Redirect template}}, the choices were to either take that template back out of R printworthy and R unprintworthy, which are now used on a good many redirects, or to leave them alone and create two rcats, R yes print and R no print, neither of which use Redirect template, so there is no template loop. I decided to create this rcat and R yes print, because of the wide usage of R printworthy and R unprintworthy on redirects, and because it had been another editor, Salix alba, who had converted these to usage of Redirect template about a year ago. It just made more sense to me to create two templates designed only for usage in Redirect template that would not cause the template loop. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. I may have to look into {{ Redirect template}} when I have some time later today or tomorrow. Either way, I restored my vote, but yes, the "loop" issue needs to be resolved first. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that could be done, as I said. We could take Redirect template out of R printworthy and R unprintworthy, and then use those instead of the two templates I created. Please take a look at the nom's rationale again. They don't want to delete this because it is a way around a template loop. They want to delete it because of a (mistaken) belief that the project no longer intends to follow the wishes of Jimmy Wales. So I humbly ask you to please !vote to keep this template and leave the other two printworthiness templates alone. They are used on a lot of redirects, both individually and embedded in the {{ This is a redirect}} template, so it is better to leave them as they are. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that I made it clear that this should not be deleted per my rationale, and this discussion. But, I'll state it now, just in case.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you did make it clear and I do comprehend. However, redirection of this template to R unprintworthy will, as you've determined, cause the template loop to recur. So, in addition to R no print's redirection, R unprintworthy would have to be altered by removing Redirect template from its code. That is doable, but is it desirable? What I humbly ask is not only that this template be kept, but that it be "kept as is" and not redirected to R unprintworthy. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. My opinion still stands on the redirect, though. The reason I think in this manner is due to a speedy deletion criterion that has been created to target templates such as this one: criterion T3. To me, the existence of this criterion shows that there has been consensus for duplicate templates (such as this one) to be ultimately merged or replaced by one sole template. But, in all honesty, it really doesn't matter to me if the new primary template's name is going to be "R unprintworthy" or "R no print" ... as long as there is only one, and the other is a redirect. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- And that's my point – {{ R no print}} is not a duplicate of {{ R unprintworthy}}. If it were a duplicate, then there would be no need to make changes to R unprintworthy before R no print is redirected to it! That is an unnecessary and unwarranted "merge", not a mere "redirection". – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that, but without the redirect loop in {{ Redirect template}}, these two would be the same; they place the redirects in the same categories, and even place the same text on the redirects. (I'm going to look into this here in a few hours, a day the latest.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I see it now. I'm hoping to have a sandbox version without the {{ Redirect template}} transclusion ... or something similar ... completed in the next few days. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- At this point, I have a different idea in mind. For the time being, I'm going to change my vote to "keep as is". I'll probably initiate another discussion after this one, considering my thoughts at this point would just "muddy the waters" for a deletion discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that I made it clear that this should not be deleted per my rationale, and this discussion. But, I'll state it now, just in case.
- Keep Template loops are bad, and using {{ R unprintworthy}} results in template loops for uses for which {{ R no print}} is to be used for. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 06:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to add three more pages and new information.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Template:R no print ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{ R unprintworthy}}
- Template:R no print/doc ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{ R unprintworthy/doc}}
- Template:R yes print ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{ R printworthy}}
- Template:R yes print/doc ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{ R printworthy/doc}}
- Redirect. (Merge) I have had a chance to closely look at recent improvements made by
Petr Matas and would agree that the latest code in Template:R no print can be used in
Template:R unprintworthy
, and likewise the latest code in Template:R yes print can be used inTemplate:R printworthy
. When these improvements are made, and I will make them soon if nobody objects, both templates,R printworthy
andR unprintworthy
can be nested in Template:Redirect template without causing a template loop. At that point, all four of the pages listed above can be redirected to their associated pages to preserve their edit histories. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, this was the "separate discussion" that I wanted to start ... to basically move the contents/code in {{ R no print}} to {{ R unprintworthy}}. (Since this is the reason for what I stated below, at this point, I'll just agree with whatever Paine Ellsworth believes should be done for this template, as well as the other templates mentioned above.) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- For the purpose of this debate, I agree with whatever Paine Ellsworth votes. If I believe additional improvements can be made later, I'll start a separate discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep until {{ Redirect template}} uses {{ R unprintworthy}} and {{ R printworthy}} and the redirect loop is resolved, Merge into the latter two afterwards. Petr Matas 17:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, Petr, I should have mentioned the "merge" part, sorry. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with this for all of the reasons I have stated above. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Petr Matas has proposed a solution that looks superior. Rs printworthy and unprintworthy, instead of calling Redirect template directly, call that /core template, which does not contain the printworthiness code found in Redirect template. That cancels the template loop with only a minor change each to R printworthy/unprintworthy. Check it out when you get a chance, Steel1943? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Im trying to understand how the template at {{ Redirect template/core}} would be integrated into the current transclusions of the aforementioned templates. As far as I see right now, this template is not transcluded anywhere. (I'm assuming that this template was meant to be created in a sandbox then made live, so maybe I'm missing something.) So that I could attempt a comparison of the two, I pasted the current contents of {{ Redirect template}} to Template:Redirect template/core/sandbox so that I could compare it to the template at "/core" via checking the differences. I only see the bottom section removed, so thus I see how the loop could potentially be removed, but I feel as though I'm still missing something. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- @
Paine Ellsworth: For some reason, I didn't receive the ping you attempted above; I just saw your response a moment ago.
Steel1943 (
talk)
04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- No problemo. The idea is to call the /core page instead of the main Redirect template from both the R printworthy and R unprintworthy rcats. That way, those two can both be nested inside Redirect template and not cause a template loop. So with that minor change, to call the /core template, this meets the challenges with no need for R yes print nor R no print. Those and their /docs can be redirected. Seems like a pretty elegant way around a template loop, eh? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- @ Steel1943: The {{ Redirect template/core}} page is also going to be transcluded from {{Redirect template}}. This is how the {{Redirect template}} should look like in the future according to the pending edit request. Petr Matas 08:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
To editor CorrectKissinTime: (nominator) – If you are okay with the redirection of {{ R no print}} to {{ R unprintworthy}} (to maintain its history-page attributions), then we can perform a nac and get the ball rollin'. Do you consent? (Please take your time and express any concerns you may have – WP:TIND.) – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is no history that would be worth keeping. CorrectKissinTime ( talk) 14:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
To editor Paine Ellsworth: – Your "mistaken" claim in hey want to delete it because of a (mistaken) belief that the project no longer intends to follow the wishes of Jimmy Wales. is wrong - Jimbo confirmed it has never been his intention. CorrectKissinTime ( talk) 14:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- As for the history, we'll have to agree to disagree. The present edit history of this template is important to keep; however, that is just my opinion as placed there with yours. I'll take this as a "no", i.e., you still want this template deleted and not redirected. That, of course, disables my ability to close this as a non-admin, which is totally okay.
- In regard to your link to Jimbo's talk page, I think we have all felt that a 1,000 volume, beautifully bound set of physical books is on the "impractical" side. That does not negate the need for this type of template, though. WP:1.0 is still an active project that relies on placement of the printworthiness templates on redirects. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Do what Petr Matas suggests. The initial idea, that this is useless because it has something to do with printing out millions of pages of WP articles at once is invalid. The unprintworthy designation refer to what should be visible should a Wikipedia article, not the entire project, is printed on paper or reused in any other off-WP way that isn't a complete mirror of WP. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait, so a parameter cannot just be added to {{ R unprintworthy}} to take up whatever purpose this template has? Dustin (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- The problem at present is that Template:Redirect template is nested inside Template:R unprintworthy, so if R unprintworthy is also nested within Redirect template, an undesirable template loop results. To keep that from happening, I created this template, R no print to be nested only within Redirect template, which does not result in a template loop. There is definitely a resolution for all this that would mean that this template, R no print, is no longer needed; however, to preserve the edit-page history, this template can be redirected to R unprintworthy instead of being deleted. –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
02:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Creating a redirect for keeping the edit history makes sense when two articles get merged. The trivial history of you creating a no longer needed template is not considered to be of any value. CorrectKissinTime ( talk) 11:10, 7 June 2014 (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). 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Memorial ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Obituary ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging
Template:Memorial with
Template:Obituary.
{{
Memorial}} is barely used, and redundant with the better-known and -used {{
Obituary}}. All of the extant uses of the former seem to be immediately replaceable with the latter. The only noteworthy difference between them is that the former makes passing reference to
WP:BIO. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
08:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Convert all transclusions of {{ Memorial}} to {{ Obituary}}, then delete {{ Memorial}}. Memorials aren't exclusively obituaries, so the template name "Memorial" is misleading. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Convert then redirect
{{Memorial}}to{{Obituary}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC) - Merge Obituary to Memorial, not all memorials are obituaries, but non-obit memorials also have problems. The relevant Policy section is called "MEMORIAL" not obit. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 06:27, 31 May 2014 (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). 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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
unused and redundant to the navbox version. 198.102.153.1 ( talk) 22:35, 30 May 2014 (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). 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 relisted on 2014 June 8 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:!mark ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:!!mark ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- 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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
No longer useful as a navigational template. Until the recent elections, there were 12 Liberal Democrat MEPs, and this template navigated between them. Now there's only one, it's not much of a navbox. I wouldn't object to it being expanded to cover 'current and former Liberal Democrat MEPs', but as it stands it serves no use. Robofish ( talk) 22:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no useful purpose being served here. -- Nizolan ( talk) 17:51, 2 June 2014 (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). 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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate; station used is Orlando Int'l Airport, which {{ Orlando weatherbox}} also uses. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 21:55, 30 May 2014 (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). 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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
redundant to {{ infobox award}} (I replaced it). Frietjes ( talk) 15:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. In fact it can be speedy-deleted under T3. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
17:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Might as well not tag it now: both venues take at least 7 days before a deletion action can be taken. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 30 May 2014 (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). 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 to delete, but it seems as though there has been some work to merge/refactor the templates. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:R no print ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Delete The rationale of this template is At some point in the future, Jimmy Wales wants to make a printed version of the full Wikipedia encyclopedia. He wanted to do that in 2003/2004. In 2014 this sounds more like Printing Out The Internet, and no sane person would want to do that. CorrectKissinTime ( talk) 13:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Is this template not used for any other purposes? Wikipedia excerpts are occasionally being printed; are we sure its deletion is not going to affect those? Are there perhaps any automated services which rely on this template being there (not necessarily for printing, but for maintenance tasks)?—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); May 30, 2014; 15:36 (UTC)
- Keep per the explanations below.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); May 30, 2014; 19:09 (UTC)
Convert to redirect to Template:R unprintworthy. In fact, I'm a bit shocked that this title doesn't redirect there already. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I've crossed out my vote above, pending the answer to my next question:Paine Ellsworth (template creator), could you explain what distinguishes this template {{ R no print}} from the template {{ R unprintworthy}}? Steel1943 ( talk) 17:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Vote restored. However, as mentioned below, the redirect loop on {{ Redirect template}} needs to be resolved prior to the retargeting happening. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)- Vote changed to keep as is. Please see below for details. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep as is.Change !vote (See below)This template is used in a master template. In answer to Steel1943's question, I created this rcat and its pal, {{ R yes print}} to be used within template {{ Redirect template}}, because if either {{ R printworthy}} or its pal, {{ R unprintworthy}}, both of which use Redirect template, are used, then an undesirable template loop is created. Couldn't have that, so I created these two to avoid the template loop. I thought I was clear in the template documentation; however, it appears that I was not. As for the nom's rationale, they did not include the link to printed version. That link explains the need for these types of redirect category templates (rcats). That link is to a previous version of the project page to show Jimbo's direct involvement; and when the "Project page" link at the top is clicked, it will be seen that this project, to publish a full, printed version of Wikipedia articles (no, not the whole internet), is still quite active.– Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- @ Paine Ellsworth: I essentially get your point about the technical reasons behind the creation of this template. But, as you most likely know, having a situation where multiple templates provide the same function is very undesirable. Can you think of any possible way to resolve the "loop" issues to allow the use of only one of these templates, preferably {{ R unprintworthy}} since it's older? (You're essentially one of the English Wikipedia's WP:RCAT specialists, so I'm sure you have thought of this already, but I'm curious why it could not be done; I may be able to provide some input/assistance.) Steel1943 ( talk) 17:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- When I encountered the template loop in {{ Redirect template}}, the choices were to either take that template back out of R printworthy and R unprintworthy, which are now used on a good many redirects, or to leave them alone and create two rcats, R yes print and R no print, neither of which use Redirect template, so there is no template loop. I decided to create this rcat and R yes print, because of the wide usage of R printworthy and R unprintworthy on redirects, and because it had been another editor, Salix alba, who had converted these to usage of Redirect template about a year ago. It just made more sense to me to create two templates designed only for usage in Redirect template that would not cause the template loop. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. I may have to look into {{ Redirect template}} when I have some time later today or tomorrow. Either way, I restored my vote, but yes, the "loop" issue needs to be resolved first. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that could be done, as I said. We could take Redirect template out of R printworthy and R unprintworthy, and then use those instead of the two templates I created. Please take a look at the nom's rationale again. They don't want to delete this because it is a way around a template loop. They want to delete it because of a (mistaken) belief that the project no longer intends to follow the wishes of Jimmy Wales. So I humbly ask you to please !vote to keep this template and leave the other two printworthiness templates alone. They are used on a lot of redirects, both individually and embedded in the {{ This is a redirect}} template, so it is better to leave them as they are. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that I made it clear that this should not be deleted per my rationale, and this discussion. But, I'll state it now, just in case.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you did make it clear and I do comprehend. However, redirection of this template to R unprintworthy will, as you've determined, cause the template loop to recur. So, in addition to R no print's redirection, R unprintworthy would have to be altered by removing Redirect template from its code. That is doable, but is it desirable? What I humbly ask is not only that this template be kept, but that it be "kept as is" and not redirected to R unprintworthy. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. My opinion still stands on the redirect, though. The reason I think in this manner is due to a speedy deletion criterion that has been created to target templates such as this one: criterion T3. To me, the existence of this criterion shows that there has been consensus for duplicate templates (such as this one) to be ultimately merged or replaced by one sole template. But, in all honesty, it really doesn't matter to me if the new primary template's name is going to be "R unprintworthy" or "R no print" ... as long as there is only one, and the other is a redirect. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- And that's my point – {{ R no print}} is not a duplicate of {{ R unprintworthy}}. If it were a duplicate, then there would be no need to make changes to R unprintworthy before R no print is redirected to it! That is an unnecessary and unwarranted "merge", not a mere "redirection". – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that, but without the redirect loop in {{ Redirect template}}, these two would be the same; they place the redirects in the same categories, and even place the same text on the redirects. (I'm going to look into this here in a few hours, a day the latest.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I see it now. I'm hoping to have a sandbox version without the {{ Redirect template}} transclusion ... or something similar ... completed in the next few days. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- At this point, I have a different idea in mind. For the time being, I'm going to change my vote to "keep as is". I'll probably initiate another discussion after this one, considering my thoughts at this point would just "muddy the waters" for a deletion discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that I made it clear that this should not be deleted per my rationale, and this discussion. But, I'll state it now, just in case.
- Keep Template loops are bad, and using {{ R unprintworthy}} results in template loops for uses for which {{ R no print}} is to be used for. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 06:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to add three more pages and new information.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Template:R no print ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{ R unprintworthy}}
- Template:R no print/doc ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{ R unprintworthy/doc}}
- Template:R yes print ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{ R printworthy}}
- Template:R yes print/doc ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{ R printworthy/doc}}
- Redirect. (Merge) I have had a chance to closely look at recent improvements made by
Petr Matas and would agree that the latest code in Template:R no print can be used in
Template:R unprintworthy
, and likewise the latest code in Template:R yes print can be used inTemplate:R printworthy
. When these improvements are made, and I will make them soon if nobody objects, both templates,R printworthy
andR unprintworthy
can be nested in Template:Redirect template without causing a template loop. At that point, all four of the pages listed above can be redirected to their associated pages to preserve their edit histories. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, this was the "separate discussion" that I wanted to start ... to basically move the contents/code in {{ R no print}} to {{ R unprintworthy}}. (Since this is the reason for what I stated below, at this point, I'll just agree with whatever Paine Ellsworth believes should be done for this template, as well as the other templates mentioned above.) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- For the purpose of this debate, I agree with whatever Paine Ellsworth votes. If I believe additional improvements can be made later, I'll start a separate discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep until {{ Redirect template}} uses {{ R unprintworthy}} and {{ R printworthy}} and the redirect loop is resolved, Merge into the latter two afterwards. Petr Matas 17:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, Petr, I should have mentioned the "merge" part, sorry. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with this for all of the reasons I have stated above. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Petr Matas has proposed a solution that looks superior. Rs printworthy and unprintworthy, instead of calling Redirect template directly, call that /core template, which does not contain the printworthiness code found in Redirect template. That cancels the template loop with only a minor change each to R printworthy/unprintworthy. Check it out when you get a chance, Steel1943? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Im trying to understand how the template at {{ Redirect template/core}} would be integrated into the current transclusions of the aforementioned templates. As far as I see right now, this template is not transcluded anywhere. (I'm assuming that this template was meant to be created in a sandbox then made live, so maybe I'm missing something.) So that I could attempt a comparison of the two, I pasted the current contents of {{ Redirect template}} to Template:Redirect template/core/sandbox so that I could compare it to the template at "/core" via checking the differences. I only see the bottom section removed, so thus I see how the loop could potentially be removed, but I feel as though I'm still missing something. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- @
Paine Ellsworth: For some reason, I didn't receive the ping you attempted above; I just saw your response a moment ago.
Steel1943 (
talk)
04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- No problemo. The idea is to call the /core page instead of the main Redirect template from both the R printworthy and R unprintworthy rcats. That way, those two can both be nested inside Redirect template and not cause a template loop. So with that minor change, to call the /core template, this meets the challenges with no need for R yes print nor R no print. Those and their /docs can be redirected. Seems like a pretty elegant way around a template loop, eh? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- @ Steel1943: The {{ Redirect template/core}} page is also going to be transcluded from {{Redirect template}}. This is how the {{Redirect template}} should look like in the future according to the pending edit request. Petr Matas 08:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
To editor CorrectKissinTime: (nominator) – If you are okay with the redirection of {{ R no print}} to {{ R unprintworthy}} (to maintain its history-page attributions), then we can perform a nac and get the ball rollin'. Do you consent? (Please take your time and express any concerns you may have – WP:TIND.) – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is no history that would be worth keeping. CorrectKissinTime ( talk) 14:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
To editor Paine Ellsworth: – Your "mistaken" claim in hey want to delete it because of a (mistaken) belief that the project no longer intends to follow the wishes of Jimmy Wales. is wrong - Jimbo confirmed it has never been his intention. CorrectKissinTime ( talk) 14:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- As for the history, we'll have to agree to disagree. The present edit history of this template is important to keep; however, that is just my opinion as placed there with yours. I'll take this as a "no", i.e., you still want this template deleted and not redirected. That, of course, disables my ability to close this as a non-admin, which is totally okay.
- In regard to your link to Jimbo's talk page, I think we have all felt that a 1,000 volume, beautifully bound set of physical books is on the "impractical" side. That does not negate the need for this type of template, though. WP:1.0 is still an active project that relies on placement of the printworthiness templates on redirects. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Do what Petr Matas suggests. The initial idea, that this is useless because it has something to do with printing out millions of pages of WP articles at once is invalid. The unprintworthy designation refer to what should be visible should a Wikipedia article, not the entire project, is printed on paper or reused in any other off-WP way that isn't a complete mirror of WP. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait, so a parameter cannot just be added to {{ R unprintworthy}} to take up whatever purpose this template has? Dustin (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- The problem at present is that Template:Redirect template is nested inside Template:R unprintworthy, so if R unprintworthy is also nested within Redirect template, an undesirable template loop results. To keep that from happening, I created this template, R no print to be nested only within Redirect template, which does not result in a template loop. There is definitely a resolution for all this that would mean that this template, R no print, is no longer needed; however, to preserve the edit-page history, this template can be redirected to R unprintworthy instead of being deleted. –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX!
02:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Creating a redirect for keeping the edit history makes sense when two articles get merged. The trivial history of you creating a no longer needed template is not considered to be of any value. CorrectKissinTime ( talk) 11:10, 7 June 2014 (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). 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Memorial ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Obituary ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging
Template:Memorial with
Template:Obituary.
{{
Memorial}} is barely used, and redundant with the better-known and -used {{
Obituary}}. All of the extant uses of the former seem to be immediately replaceable with the latter. The only noteworthy difference between them is that the former makes passing reference to
WP:BIO. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
08:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Convert all transclusions of {{ Memorial}} to {{ Obituary}}, then delete {{ Memorial}}. Memorials aren't exclusively obituaries, so the template name "Memorial" is misleading. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Convert then redirect
{{Memorial}}to{{Obituary}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC) - Merge Obituary to Memorial, not all memorials are obituaries, but non-obit memorials also have problems. The relevant Policy section is called "MEMORIAL" not obit. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 06:27, 31 May 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.