| Revision as of 12:07, 13 February 2015 editJane023 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,184 edits →Template:Interlanguage link: interesting, but no for now← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:19, 13 February 2015 edit undoDirtlawyer1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers88,853 edits →Template:Interlanguage link: Thank Andy for notifying the template creatorNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| *{{Ping|Pigsonthewing}} '''Query''' - Is there a reason why you have not notified User:Magnus Manske, the creator of Template:Red Wikidata link, of this pending TfD merge proposal? ] (]) 11:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC) | *{{Ping|Pigsonthewing}} '''Query''' - Is there a reason why you have not notified User:Magnus Manske, the creator of Template:Red Wikidata link, of this pending TfD merge proposal? ] (]) 11:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :*Thank you for notifying the template creator, Andy . There is always the possibility that a template creator will offer insights that will support and/or refine your proposed merge. ] (]) 12:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Interesting proposal. I was unaware of the interlanguage link template, but I like it. I don't think we should merge these quite yet, though I follow your logic. Clearly from the numbers you have posted, unless they were added by a bot, the interlanguage link has won the "usability game" and is preferred by editors. Probably because the number of editors who understand what interlanguage links are and how to link them with prefixes is still much, much larger than the number of editors who know how to look up a Q number. By merging you will scare off all of those diligent interlanguage link users, and we definitely want them to keep on doing what they do. ] (]) 12:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC) | * Interesting proposal. I was unaware of the interlanguage link template, but I like it. I don't think we should merge these quite yet, though I follow your logic. Clearly from the numbers you have posted, unless they were added by a bot, the interlanguage link has won the "usability game" and is preferred by editors. Probably because the number of editors who understand what interlanguage links are and how to link them with prefixes is still much, much larger than the number of editors who know how to look up a Q number. By merging you will scare off all of those diligent interlanguage link users, and we definitely want them to keep on doing what they do. ] (]) 12:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:19, 13 February 2015
| < February 12 | February 14 > |
|---|
February 13
Template:Interlanguage link
- Template:Interlanguage link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (9,387 transclusions
- Template:Red Wikidata link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (28 transclusions)
Propose merging Template:Interlanguage link with Template:Red Wikidata link.
{{Interlanguage link}}, is entered as {{Interlanguage link|no|Sigmund Jakobsen}} and renders as:
{{Red Wikidata link}} is entered as {{Red Wikidata link|Sigmund Jakobsen|Q12000343}}
and renders as:
I propose replacing both of these with a combined template which renders as
We would need to agree on parameter sequencing (or numbering) or naming; and whether the output should be fixed (my preference) or optional. It may be possible to allow the input to be in either of the current formats.
For editors who read only English, the Reasonator version of the above example is more easily understood than the Norwegian-language version. Note that some subjects may exist on Wikidata/Reasonator, but not in any Wikipedias.
Given the differing number of transclusions, it makes sense to make the changes to the Interlanguage template and replace instances of the Red Wikidata template. We may need a bot to do replacement, perhaps by Subst:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: Query - Is there a reason why you have not notified User:Magnus Manske, the creator of Template:Red Wikidata link, of this pending TfD merge proposal? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying the template creator, Andy . There is always the possibility that a template creator will offer insights that will support and/or refine your proposed merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting proposal. I was unaware of the interlanguage link template, but I like it. I don't think we should merge these quite yet, though I follow your logic. Clearly from the numbers you have posted, unless they were added by a bot, the interlanguage link has won the "usability game" and is preferred by editors. Probably because the number of editors who understand what interlanguage links are and how to link them with prefixes is still much, much larger than the number of editors who know how to look up a Q number. By merging you will scare off all of those diligent interlanguage link users, and we definitely want them to keep on doing what they do. Jane (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Acme aircraft
- Template:Acme aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The purpose of templates is that it improves navigation between related article. This template navigates between only one article and its parent article. Normal wikilinking can solve this, no need for a navigation templates that does not help navigating. The Banner talk 00:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per The Banner's nomination rationale. We don't keep navboxes with two working links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I don;t think the company even needs an article, it could just be rolled into the aircraft article, since that's all there is to the company. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Miss Universe 2015 delegates
template of participants without parent article The Banner talk 00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Largest towns of the Philippines
Misleading as it states not the biggest towns of the Phillipines and confusing with Template:Largest cities of the Philippines The Banner talk 00:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- @The Banner: Query - Is there some sort of official distinction between "cities" and "towns" in the Philippines? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I do not know that. Looks unlikely to me. The Banner talk 10:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant as there is already the largest cities and towns template for the Philippines. Cities and municipalities form the second-level admin unit in the Philippines and they only really differ in terms of political maturity and income which are vague.--RioHondo (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)