Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 22

< January 21	January 23 >

January 22

Template:Latin Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Album

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 January 31. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latin_Grammy_Award_for_Best_Male_Pop_Vocal_Album (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).

Template:Mention the soreh cinema

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).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Deleted by Writ Keeper per WP:G5 (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mention the soreh cinema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template (note: It was on the Soreh Cinema article) of unclear purpose. DexDor^(talk) 12:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Click inline

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Click inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete and replace with normal image syntax. Following up on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 12#Template:Click. Not objective, but this could probably be speedy as this is the same exact argument as the previous template. Gonnym (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous TfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Europeana entity

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Europeana entity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Editor consensus regarding Europeana and Wikidata Property 7704, it became clear that the quality of Europeana is often not good, and that editors preferred not to link to Europeana at all, or to include it in authority control, but at least not to have a more prominent separate template.

However, the editor who created the template and started the VPP discussion (after a complaint about the quality from another editor at his user talk page) then added a summary concluding that the template could be used anyway.

Europeana seems like a good initiative, but so far with seriously flawed results, and as such should not be template-linked from our articles. Fram (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the "doer" of connecting 160 000 Europeana artists to Wikidata Europeana entity (P7704) and agree that the Europeana people need to do the homework and proof that they have quality and a process/skills to improve quality see my latest status abt. P7704 - Salgo60 (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I think consensus was clear at Village Pump that this template should not be used. Reyk _YO! 12:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at VP has not been closed; nor is consensus demonstrated there. No evidence, let alone quantitative data, has been provided there, or here, for the allegations of quality issues in Europeana (note to anyone thinking of providing any: anecdotes are not evidence) That said, the identifier values discussed belong in {{Authority control}}, not a separate template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Europeana see T243764#5833958 - Salgo60 (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of outcome at the village pump this shouldn't be added as a separate template, perhaps at authority control if the quality is fine which I haven't looked into. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).