From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. It is already obvious that these templates will both be kept. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Find sources multi/gnewsrecent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Find sources multi/gnews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Find sources multi/gnewsrecent with Template:Find sources multi/gnews.
Apparently the feature that distinguished these template – search in news archive – is gone, so template:find sources multi/gnews serves no purpose any more. So basically I suggest moving template:find sources multi/gnewsrecent to template:find sources multi/gnews over pre-existing template. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't see this as controversial, as the two have been functionally identical since Google pulled their news archive search. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If Google's news archive search might come back, then keeping these two link codes separate is probably the best solution. If we merged them and split them again later, users will get a different search link depending on what code they chose, and they may not have been aware that there was a possibility of the links changing when they made their code choice. Keeping the news archive search around with a red "this is deprecated" notice may not look neat on the template page, but it's not going to make much difference to the transclusions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Note: this is showing up in quite a lot of draft-space pages since it's transcluded in the AfC decline template. APerson (talk!) 13:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google have always maintained that they are not removing their news archive service. They say they are working on improving it.[1] The "site:google.com/newspapers" is just a temporary workround. My feeling is to leave this alone (BTW: I sometimes seem to get more hits after restricting to the "newspapers" site that I do when I have not restricted). The present nomination is causing widespread (but slight) disruption and to merge would, I suppose, cause more. Let's wait and see what Google does. Thincat (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I get six hits with this but only four with this. Thincat (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have separate template:find sources multi/gnewspapers for newspapers. Also note: current naming scheme is very unfortunate: "gnews" is not simply "Google News", but "Google News archive", and "Google News recent" (which is currently broken, at least for me) is for generic Google News. I would suggest to, well, do as I proposed and introduce new options for complex news queries once Google adds corresponding services back. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yes. They're very old newspapers. Thincat (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.