Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 28#Template:English-language arts magazines

: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. After two weeks there is no semblance of any consensus, nor does it look likely that one is on its way. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Fc}}

:{{Tfd links|afc}}

:{{Tfd links|afc2}}

:{{Tfd links|Lfc}}

:{{Tfd links|Efs}}

:{{Tfd links|Nfa}}

:{{Tfd links|Nft}}

:{{Tfd links|Nftu}}

:{{Tfd links|Nwft}}

:{{Tfd links|Nwftu}}

These templates were brought up to discussion at WT:FOOTY (read about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Template:Fc) and all editors involved agreed to go to TFD. The templates are unneccesary and they are only used to make wikilinks to articles, for example writing {{fc|Chelsea}} gives Chelsea. Hard to see the real purpose, we should use the wikilink directly instead of having these templates. I have not seen them being used on my time on wikipedia but apperently they exist. It is the same for all templates in this TFD discussion. I propose delete for all templates and to have a bot substitute the templates with wikilinks were the templates is used.QED237 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. No point having templates when wikilinks can be used with barely more effort. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see any benefit for this at all. If anything it's more confusing having these templates rather than just using standard wikilinks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

:Please explain how these templates are "confusing". To whom and in what way? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - these templates are pretty much the same as the ones discussed in this discussion, and I believe we should wait discussion these templates until the other discussion has reached a consensus. Regardless of the outcome, these templates should be automatically substituted as they serves no real purpose except being shorter to type. {{subst:fc|Chelsea}} is slightly shorter than Chelsea. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Per the nom plus the comments in the original discussion. Templates purely for wikilinks add no real benefit and add extra maintenence. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, especially Fc use it all the time in season articles it is far easier, neater and uses less server space (not main issue i know) than typing the likes of Heart of Midlothian every time. We seem to be going through a spate of editors nominating templates because simply well simple code does the same job. There are a lot of things in life that do the same job doesn't mean there is an easier or similar way of doing things that is perfectly acceptable. Obviously hope there is a plan for fixing the links these templates currently provide.Blethering Scot 23:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - seems to be a very complex way of making a simple wikilink. - Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete, unneeded crufty complexity. Also, whenever I hear about server space as a reason to do or not to do something I kill a server kitty. Please just build an encyclopedia and leave these issues to us the technical team. Max Semenik (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per dominator. Banhtrung1 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete all per Ahunt. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - This should be the Strongest possible keep as this discussion and that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Template:Fc seem to be based on a complete misunderstanding of how these templates are meant to be used. They are intended to save an editor time and key strokes when creating an article; server space is a total irrelevance. As the documentation on Template:Fc says, these templates should only be used with substitution active. If I create an article about a footballer who played for Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday and Wolverhampton Wanderers, it is much simpler and quicker to type: "Joe Bloggs was a footballer who played for {{subst:fc|Nottingham Forest}}, {{subst:fc|Sheffield Wednesday}} and {{subst:fc|Wolverhampton Wanderers}}" which produces the result "Joe Bloggs was a footballer who played for Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday and Wolverhampton Wanderers" than it is to type: "Joe Bloggs was a footballer who played for Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday and Wolverhampton Wanderers." (At least it would have done before the templates were tagged for deletion.) Once the edit is saved, the template is replaced by the desired wikilink and the template then ceases to be used. I agree that all unsubstituted uses of the template should be replaced by proper wikilinks, but the templates themselves should be retained and the documentation improved to stress the need for substitution. I see no point in removing a tool that makes an editor's life easier just on the grounds of a bit of housekeeping. I have made use of these templates (properly substituted) many, many times and they have probably saved me several days of typing time. Please can I ask people to think again about the proper use of these templates. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

:::I should add that using the {{subst:nft|England}} template saves considerably more typing, compared to typing England. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'd be tempted to change my position if each template throws a huge warning that demands that it is "subst"ed. Is that the case (or can it be quickly made the case?) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per Daemonic Kangaroo --NovaSkola (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per Daemonic Kangaroo. I also have used these templates countless times in the way he describes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - I disagree with DK that these are easier/quicker to use, and I agree with RM's sentiment that these can be confusing. GiantSnowman 10:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

: As I have asked above, how are they confusing? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:: Nobody knows how to use them. GiantSnowman 11:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

::: That is not entirely correct. Very few people know how to use them correctly. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Completely unnecessary templates that provide no real benefit and add undue complexity. JMHamo (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - try reading Daemonic Kangaroo's comment, and you'll find "real benefit". Mentoz86 (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I did already and disagree with it being beneficial, hence my Delete !vote. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment – After reading arguments I can (as starter of this TFD) really understand both sides. I still think it is totally unnesseary templates and I will not use them myself (just copy'n'paste the team name instead of writing it twice if it take to long to write). However I understand that it can and should be used with substitution as Daemonic Kangaroo wrote very well. But the thing is that when I was looking around there were many many many times these templates are misused, for example at 2013–14 Newcastle United F.C. season. If we could make it very clear to only use with substitution perhaps it could still stay on wiki, but today that is not the case. QED237 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

:: Copy-paste doesn't work terribly well if you're editing on a tablet. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment regardless of the outcome of this discussion a bot will be required to clean up the existing mis-uses of the templates. If there was a single more intelligent template that would know the difference between fc and afc that might be useful. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!)
• Keep - for artcles on individual football team seasons and for use on cup competition rounds these template are more aesthetically pleasing, provide easy to understand colours and provide clean and simple presentation of the information. Sport and politics (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

:*Comment - "provide easy to understand colours" - What are you talking about? JMHamo (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

:*{{ping|Sport and politics}}, have you even looked at the templates you are commenting on? GiantSnowman 13:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

:::See {{Tfd links|Fbw-big}} which presumably is also up for deletion Clavdia chauchat (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

::::It is not, as far as I can see........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - There is a similar discussion ongoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_13#Template:WLeague_NUJ here], where again some editors feel these sorts of templates are "unnecessary" but stop short of advancing any coherent policy/guideline reasons for their deletion. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

:*The WP:BURDEN is on those wanting to keep these templates - and you have not advanced any coherent policy/guideline reasons for them to remain. Saying "some editors find them slightly easier to edit" is not nearly enough. GiantSnowman 15:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

::WP:BURDEN seems to me to be a total irrelevance, as it refers to "material challenged or likely to be challenged". What has that to do with templates? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:::The existence/use of these templates has been challenged, has it not? GiantSnowman 11:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

::::I think you are being a tad disingenuous. WP:BURDEN is only relevant where unsourced material is included in an article. It has nothing to do with templates. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::Surely when sending stuff to TfD the "burden" is on the nominator to come up with a reason beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I won't lose any sleep if these templates are canned – not being a lazybones, I don't use them – but I reckon the perceived paucity of the keep arguments is because we haven't been given anything to refute. Look, I could send all manner of stuff to TfD (or AfD) on the basis I think it's "unnecessary" but it would only take one other editor to demur and that'd be my entire flimsy argument pretty much blown out of the water. Would it not? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep I find these templates really useful, but I'd agree that they should be subst'ed. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, I now find that I tend to agree. Can someone ensure these templates are provided with warnings to guarantee that "substing" will happen? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Templates are not keyboard shortcuts. I see a few reasons why these templates are desirable, rooted in breaking monotony, but I prefer using a JavaScript solution. If that is unacceptable, consider my !vote to be weak delete. —PC-XT+ 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

::Where is there a policy that says "Templates are not keyboard shortcuts"? They can be for whatever the concensus decides. As for JavaScript, I for one have no idea what the relevance is. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:::I am unaware of any such policy. I am talking about implementation. If templates were the only way to do such a thing, they would be used for that purpose, but I believe that JavaScript is much better suited. There are three exceptions to this belief: If your browser does not support JavaScript, if you are editing from an IP without userscripts and your browser doesn't easily support custom JavaScript as a workaround, or if there is some technical limitation that makes JavaScript poor for a particular shortcut, you must use templates, modules, bots, custom editors, or some kind of combination or hack. JavaScript is widely supported by most browsers. The resulting shortcuts can be easier to type than templates, if desired. User scripts are in userspace, so there is less of a threat for deletion, and even if they are deleted, it may be possible to use them locally, instead. They do not pollute public space. Editors who find a user script are more likely to know what it does, and possibly how to use it, because there is often more context. (It still would require documentation for most people.) Therefore, my !vote is to delete, but weakly if they are used by non-JavaScript editors. If anyone wants to make these personal virtual templates or something, to avoid loss of functionality if they are deleted, I would be willing to make a user script for that purpose. Just let me know. —PC-XT+ 15:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per Daemonic Kangaroo and as mentioned on the other TFD discussing this, I personally use these kind of templates a lot and they are very helpful and timesaving --SuperJew (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete all Cannot see any useful application of these templates (I disagree with the above that they're easier to type, as they require the use of more characters that involves holding down the shift key). Their use also require knowledge of what club's suffixes are (F.C. or A.F.C. or something else). Number 57 17:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:: If your concern is the use of the shift key, perhaps we should only type in lower case in future, as capital letters require the use of the Caps key. As for the various ways in which F.C. and A.F.C. are used, so does providing a correct wiki link without a redirect, especially for a club such as A.F.C. Bournemouth. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

:::It's not my concern at all - I was merely pointing out that I don't believe it's easier to type out these templates than just do a proper wikilink. Number 57 11:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

::::The advantage is that if you're filling in a player's infobox, you can put into your clipboard, then you only have to type out the club names and . It really does save time. ArtVandelay13 (talk)

:Keep Substitute only once in a while. -Koppapa (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• delete all, obfuscates links with little benefit. Frietjes (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep but ensure that the documentation is clear that the substitution function must be used. Used correctly, templates can be timesavers. The problem seems to be when unsubstituted templates are left in the article. Hack (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - TFD consensus exists that these kind of templates are not needed/wanted, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 13#Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 13. GiantSnowman 13:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I started a userscript to allow the use of the deleted Wleague templates, as well as some of these, forcing substitution. It's currently a draft, but I'll put documentation at User:PC-XT/JSubst, in case someone wants to try it. —PC-XT+ 05:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Daemonic Kangaroo. robwingfield ^«T•C» 16:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't like saying delete. If this were another site, I'd probably try to keep most templates, (redirecting redundant ones,) but that would make a bulky encyclopedia. I'm uncomfortable !voting to keep any of these, except maybe Template:Nfa/code, which uses standard FIFA codes, and so may possibly be useful elsewhere. —PC-XT+ 00:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Note: I already !voted delete, above, but this is a possible exception 00:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• delete all I can see no benefits over simply typing the link, while they cost every editor time who encounters them and has to work out what each does. In my experience this takes much longer as they are so unexpected: an editor encountering them thinks "surely they must do something else", such as add a category – until you look at the template, perhaps even the source, and see they don't.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:33, 10 January 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) 04:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Columbia Lions bowl game navbox}}

Only one entry in this template, and with the Ivy League no longer in FBS, unlikely to be any more. ...William 21:02, 28 December 2013 (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) 04:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Harvard Crimson bowl game navbox}}

Only one entry in this template, and with the Ivy League no longer in FBS, unlikely to be any more. ...William 21:01, 28 December 2013 (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) 21:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Clothing brands by country}}

WP:NENAN. There's no way this navbox could ever be remotely complete. As it stands, it is a random collection of links to clothing brands and retailers (which don't even belong, as they are retailers, not labels) in two random countries. It was hastily and poorly created, then spammed on to multiple articles in the wrong place and force to expand, even when there are far more relevant navboxes present. It's one of the poorest navboxes I've ever seen.oknazevad (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• delete, better covered by a category Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 2 January 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) 21:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|FIFA Club World Cup topscorers}}

There is no actual award given to the top goalscorers at the FIFA Club World Cup, so to create such a navbox linking them is on the verge of original research in that it suggests a link that FIFA do not themselves recognise. – PeeJay 13:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 13:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as OR. Failing that, merge into {{tl|FIFA Club World Cup}}. GiantSnowman 13:34, 28 December 2013 (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) 21:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Palm Beach County Shopping Districts and Streets}}

For a template that's about shopping districts, the majority of the articles are about streets not shopping areas. Template doesn't link related topics. ...William 13:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• delete Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 2 January 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) 21:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|English-language arts magazines}}

Despite three moribund discussions on the talk page, this template has no inclusion criteria whatsoever, making it pure subjective opinion on the part of its editors. There are literally hundreds—possibly thousands—of English-language arts magazines (see for example List of literary magazines, List of art magazines, and List of music magazines). I do not believe there are any objective criteria by which a useful and manageably small selection of these could be made. Psychonaut (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• delete, better covered by a category. Frietjes (talk) 19:09, 2 January 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) 21:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Penn Quakers bowl game navbox}}

Only one entry in this template, and with the Ivy League no longer in FBS, unlikely to be any more pbp 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

:Delete per nominator....William 13:14, 28 December 2013 (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.