Template talk:Battlegroup DE Glutsturm

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion vote

Votes

Delete

  1. Delete Gethe (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC) - (Nominated)
  2. Delete PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 18:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC) - (no comment)
  3. Delete Xporc (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC) - (optional comment)

Keep

Proposal

Recommend Deletion/merge of these pages:

in favor of the currently used names:

Comments

First of all I think the form of this "deletion" should be redirection to the new battlegroup template. This will make it easier to update realm pages (see below). But first, some things to deal with.

Looking at "What links here" for each of the candidates for deletion, I see three article types that must be considered. My advice on each:

  1. The article for the old battlegroup corresponding to the template. For instance, Battlegroup EN Cyclone uses Template:Battlegroup EN Cyclone to list its realms. These articles should be marked with {{removedfromgame}} with an appropriate explanation of the battlegroup merge - see the example on Battlegroup ES Crueldad. More importantly for this discussion, the templates on those pages should be "locked in". They should not be replaced by the new templates because those articles are about the old battlegroups, not the new ones.
  2. Articles (and subpages) for servers which have been shut down, for instance Server:Shadowmoon Europe. Since those realms closed before ever joining the new battlegroups, the record of their existence should preserve the old battlegroup. I'm not sure which servers were affected, but this article mentions at least 4: [1]
  3. Articles (and subpages) for active servers. Since these realms did become part of the new battlegroups, it is correct for the articles' templates to update when you redirect the old templates. It would be great to put a note in each of those realm pages noting the original battlegroup (see Server:Arthas Europe)...not a necessity, but great :) Of course, it is not that hard to do this at a later date as long as you preserve the original battlegroup roster in the old battlegroup page.

Doing the "locking in" of the old template may be a bit of a pain. I first thought a simple use of {{subst:...}} would do it but then I realized that the templates you're deleting aren't transcluded directly, they're transcluded by the {{Battlegroup}} template. One option would be to modify the battlegroup template so that it can be used to perform a double substitution, locking in the entire combined template on each page. However {{Battlegroup}} is used in like 800 places so perhaps that much change is unwarranted. The "simpler" option is probably best: first stick a "subst:" in each {{Battlegroup|...}} tag you need to lock in, as in {{subst:Battlegroup|DE|Glutsturm}} on the Battlegroup DE Glutsturm page. This will expose the {{Battlegroup ... ...}} markup (it will be within an infobox). Then edit once more to add "subst:" to THAT tag, as in {{subst:Battlegroup DE Glutstorm}}. Then you're done, the "old version" of the rosters are permanently saved on the appropriate pages, and you can go ahead and change things.

After at least those top 2 things are dealt with, you'll have my vote for deletion-via-redirection. - jerodast (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Did this ever go anywhere? -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 00:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)