The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
all redirects. Frietjes ( talk) 18:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused and duplicates navigation found in {{ Ferruccio Busoni}}. Frietjes ( talk) 17:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused and broken. Frietjes ( talk) 17:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13 Talk 08:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused duplicate of {{ official website}}. Frietjes ( talk) 17:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:Buildcat (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:U.S._government_agencies (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
used in one article about a non-US government agency. Frietjes ( talk) 17:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was procedural keep for now. The VPP discussion linked below is ongoing, and its outcome obviously affects this template. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Only 14 transclusions, some in citations. Not clear why we would ever be linking to a translation site. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I've posted about the wider issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Links to Google Translate. I'm happy to suspend this nomination until that is resolved, if others agree that's the best way forward. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:JOI (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
accessibility nightmare. I believe the allcaps piece of it can also be resolved trivially if consensus were to keep the template. However, I expect all of the words in this template only to be found in quotation in the mainspace, for the most part, which probably should not be changed (using this template). -- Izno ( talk) 19:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:Beacon (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused Used on one article.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 16:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
Beacon|author=Bruno}}
, producing this:
Beacon. Go ahead and click on that and see what you get. This is not one whit different from putting {{
Google custom|rollingstone.com|Jackson}}
into an article. While we do have {{
Google custom}}
, it's because we use it extensively on talk pages. That rationale does not apply to this {{
Beacon}}
template, and its explicit intent appears to be to be used inappropriately in articles. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
External link template created 2012; single use, with no other links to the target sub-site on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We don't have cast and crew in navboxes per longstanding consensus. A navbox just detailing presenters and panelists in a game show is just an extension of the same principle. Navboxes like this just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others. For the same reason we have the guideline WP:PERFCAT for categories. Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:German_law_section (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Complex external links template, supporting twenty jurisdictions, but with only five transclusions in all. Documentation is in German. See also Template:§§'s TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
[http://url.goes.here/page Title]
link, and it isn't really plausible that someone is going to remember all the parameter quirkiness for several different national jurisdictions – almost all lawyers, legal scholars, and law students (the most likely people to be using such a template) are specialists, not generalists in the legal codes of a swath of countries.Back to
Template:German law section: It uses code like {{German law section|433|BGB|dejure|text=§§ 433 ff.}}
to generate output like "{{German law section/sandbox|433|BGB|dejure|text=§§ 433 ''ff.''}}" which can be replaced with [http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/433.html §§ 433 ''ff.''] (about the same length, much much lower operational complexity)
. So, I guess the question is this: Are there (or will there be) a significant number of editors who know the "BGB", "dejure" and "443 ff." parts (perhaps because they are German lawyers, and/or have a paper book at hand, who do not already have the URL, or cannot more quickly find it than they can assemble this template? I have to think that German Wikipedia has this template for a reason, just like en.wiki has some complicated ones for US, UK, etc., law. That a template is "complicated" to non-experts in the subject matter is not a deletion rationale, especially if it is not complicated to experts who will use it, otherwise we'd delete about 1,000 templates right this second. "Not used much yet" is a weak one as well when the template's documentation hasn't been translated yet, and it was not properly categorized at
Category:Europe law templates until just now. I'm not !voting keep because I think the question I asked probably has an answer of "not on English Wikipedia", but that's just an assumption of which I might get disabused. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:BTS_line_links (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This template is being used to create bold coloured text within article prose, which is against the manual of style. Paul_012 ( talk) 09:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
BTS line links|Sukhumvit}}
and {{
BTS line links|BRT}}
has to be changed to black, because the white-on-pale-color output ({{
BTS line links|BRT}}
) has insufficient contrast. Also, the template's |2=
parameter and what it does has to be documented; it clearly does change the output in the table of examples, but to what end is unclear. Anyway, that the template is occasionally being misused (assuming its actually intended use is legit) is not a deletion rationale. Even rampant misuse is often treated as not a deletion rationale, as I've learned the hard way in trying to get rid of the
pull quote templates, about 99.8% of the uses of which are MoS-violating and policy-violating, PoV-pushing abuses of it – more than 100,000 examples of it to date, probably the largest anti-
WP:CCPOL memetic cancer in Wikipedia. If that problem isn't enough for TfD to act on, then this isn't certainly isn't, without a clearer consensus what to do about the desire to colorize transit-line names in tables. I suspect the answer will be the same as it is for sports teams and universities: Do not apply "livery" colors except in places that already serve a partially decorative function, like infoboxes and navboxes. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
all redirects. Frietjes ( talk) 18:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused and duplicates navigation found in {{ Ferruccio Busoni}}. Frietjes ( talk) 17:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused and broken. Frietjes ( talk) 17:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13 Talk 08:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused duplicate of {{ official website}}. Frietjes ( talk) 17:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:Buildcat (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 17:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:U.S._government_agencies (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
used in one article about a non-US government agency. Frietjes ( talk) 17:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was procedural keep for now. The VPP discussion linked below is ongoing, and its outcome obviously affects this template. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Only 14 transclusions, some in citations. Not clear why we would ever be linking to a translation site. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I've posted about the wider issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Links to Google Translate. I'm happy to suspend this nomination until that is resolved, if others agree that's the best way forward. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:JOI (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
accessibility nightmare. I believe the allcaps piece of it can also be resolved trivially if consensus were to keep the template. However, I expect all of the words in this template only to be found in quotation in the mainspace, for the most part, which probably should not be changed (using this template). -- Izno ( talk) 19:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:Beacon (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused Used on one article.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 16:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
Beacon|author=Bruno}}
, producing this:
Beacon. Go ahead and click on that and see what you get. This is not one whit different from putting {{
Google custom|rollingstone.com|Jackson}}
into an article. While we do have {{
Google custom}}
, it's because we use it extensively on talk pages. That rationale does not apply to this {{
Beacon}}
template, and its explicit intent appears to be to be used inappropriately in articles. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
External link template created 2012; single use, with no other links to the target sub-site on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We don't have cast and crew in navboxes per longstanding consensus. A navbox just detailing presenters and panelists in a game show is just an extension of the same principle. Navboxes like this just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others. For the same reason we have the guideline WP:PERFCAT for categories. Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:German_law_section (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Complex external links template, supporting twenty jurisdictions, but with only five transclusions in all. Documentation is in German. See also Template:§§'s TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
[http://url.goes.here/page Title]
link, and it isn't really plausible that someone is going to remember all the parameter quirkiness for several different national jurisdictions – almost all lawyers, legal scholars, and law students (the most likely people to be using such a template) are specialists, not generalists in the legal codes of a swath of countries.Back to
Template:German law section: It uses code like {{German law section|433|BGB|dejure|text=§§ 433 ff.}}
to generate output like "{{German law section/sandbox|433|BGB|dejure|text=§§ 433 ''ff.''}}" which can be replaced with [http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/433.html §§ 433 ''ff.''] (about the same length, much much lower operational complexity)
. So, I guess the question is this: Are there (or will there be) a significant number of editors who know the "BGB", "dejure" and "443 ff." parts (perhaps because they are German lawyers, and/or have a paper book at hand, who do not already have the URL, or cannot more quickly find it than they can assemble this template? I have to think that German Wikipedia has this template for a reason, just like en.wiki has some complicated ones for US, UK, etc., law. That a template is "complicated" to non-experts in the subject matter is not a deletion rationale, especially if it is not complicated to experts who will use it, otherwise we'd delete about 1,000 templates right this second. "Not used much yet" is a weak one as well when the template's documentation hasn't been translated yet, and it was not properly categorized at
Category:Europe law templates until just now. I'm not !voting keep because I think the question I asked probably has an answer of "not on English Wikipedia", but that's just an assumption of which I might get disabused. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 25#Template:BTS_line_links (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ( talk) 10:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
This template is being used to create bold coloured text within article prose, which is against the manual of style. Paul_012 ( talk) 09:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
BTS line links|Sukhumvit}}
and {{
BTS line links|BRT}}
has to be changed to black, because the white-on-pale-color output ({{
BTS line links|BRT}}
) has insufficient contrast. Also, the template's |2=
parameter and what it does has to be documented; it clearly does change the output in the table of examples, but to what end is unclear. Anyway, that the template is occasionally being misused (assuming its actually intended use is legit) is not a deletion rationale. Even rampant misuse is often treated as not a deletion rationale, as I've learned the hard way in trying to get rid of the
pull quote templates, about 99.8% of the uses of which are MoS-violating and policy-violating, PoV-pushing abuses of it – more than 100,000 examples of it to date, probably the largest anti-
WP:CCPOL memetic cancer in Wikipedia. If that problem isn't enough for TfD to act on, then this isn't certainly isn't, without a clearer consensus what to do about the desire to colorize transit-line names in tables. I suspect the answer will be the same as it is for sports teams and universities: Do not apply "livery" colors except in places that already serve a partially decorative function, like infoboxes and navboxes. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)