Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 26

< September 25	September 27 >

September 26 edit

Template:Ship Homeport ... edit

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) 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ship Homeport BW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ship Homeport HI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ship Homeport KB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ship Homeport LB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ship Homeport MAY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ship Homeport NL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ship Homeport NOR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ship Homeport SD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ship Homeport YOK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It was suggested during this discussion that these templates should be substituted and deleted as relics from the old {{ship table}} system. I agree, or if not, then merge or expand the system since there are more than 9 homeports for ships. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial text substitution. Better that this were finally done away with than expanded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been working with the ships project for 4 years and never knew these existed. Trivial template as noted. Brad (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2011 (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.

Template:Latest stable software release/ClicksAndWhistles edit

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 to delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/ClicksAndWhistles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not sure what the hell this template is supposed to do. The article ClicksAndWhistles was deleted long ago for lack of notability. This template failed Speedy in 2010 and has been untouched for over a year. Delete. Safiel (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, it does the same thing that all the Latest stable software release templates do, it adds informat to the corresponding article's infobox. However, if there is no article, there is no need for the template, so delete it. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, within WP:COMP, we also use LSR/LPR templates within comparison articles (speaking as someone who has spent a good deal of time reworking these [1]). At present, there has been an edit war over the content in one of these comparison articles, so this template isn't currently transcluded. It is tagged by the WikiProject so it isn't "lost" or "abandoned", so eventually it will be re-transcluded once everything else settles out. Safiel, is there any particular reason why you are targeting this specific template for deletion? --Tothwolf (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was browsing through my edit list and this Template, among other things, just caught my eye. I had restored a Speedy Template on it last year, which was eventually declined. I clicked on the Template, checked the edit history, checked for the main article and when I saw no recent edit history and no main article, nominated it for deletion. If the main article had existed, I probably would not have nominated this for deletion. As we all know, sometimes things get left behind on Wikipedia which have no more purpose and I thought this template was one of them. If this does actually have a useful purpose, I would be willing to change my previous position. Safiel (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the edit history, you'll note the CSD had been applied by one of the individuals who was involved in the mess documented at the top of my talk page, and one of the participants in that mess was also was also later discovered to be a prolific sockpuppeteer. See this link and this link (C&C warning on the later) for a cliffsnotes version. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly was this decision made to maintain LSR/LPR templates for comparison articles? Most of our software comparison articles are execrable enough without dragging in dozens of auxiliary templates to maintain as well, and if a subject isn't notable enough for an article it certainly shouldn't be notable enough for two supporting templates. Aside from that, "tagged by the project" is not the same as "used by the encyclopedia", and this is unused. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LSR templates have been used in larger comparison articles for as far back as I can remember. Comparison articles by their very nature tend to be complex in terms of markup and the more widely used comparisons are often quite large. As I understand it, using transcluded LSR templates cuts down on the number of minor edits to these articles and helps prevent markup breakage.
  With this specific template, at one time the comparison which transcluded it got edited weekly or multiple times a week just to update the version information in this template. Now, the individual mentioned above who had previously attempted to CSD this template on 30 July 2010, also did the same disruptive stuff here which at the time was also transcluded (also note the false CSD G8 and R1 tagging and tag-teaming in the edit history).
  If leaving these in the Template: namespace is an issue while the edit warring issue is worked out, I can move them to a subpage in project space or even my userspace, but I don't see how keeping these in their current location harms anything. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd prefer for them to be userfied if they're not currently being transcluded. On the larger issue of including LSR/LPR templates for subjects we don't have individual articles for I may raise an RfC, as to me it seems like a great deal of effort to go to for software that we don't for whetever reason consider independently notable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If things don't settle out with the long running edit warring I may see about sandboxing any which are currently orphaned so they don't end up CSD tagged later.
      Regarding notability however, this has already been discussed heavily elsewhere. You need to keep in mind that notability does not apply to the content of an article, only the subject, and is used only for the purposes of determining if something should have a standalone article. We can (and often do) include things which are verifiable in comparisons and other larger parent articles and redirect there when something isn't considered notable enough per WP:N for the purposes of having its own standalone article. This is usually a win-win for everyone because readers can still find the information they are looking for and we don't end up with tons of tiny stub software articles.
      As far as the LSR/LPR system itself goes, I was actually working on some improvements before the events I mentioned above began to go down. I've also considered working on something where we could include the information about a group of programs in a single template instead of having many separate templates, but outside of brainstorming I never took the idea further. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep This is not a big deal for me. I nominated the Template on the assumption nobody was using it. If somebody is using it, I won't push this issue. I can't withdraw the nomination as somebody else has advocated for delete, so the nomination will have to run its course. Safiel (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2011 (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.

Template:Comedy Central Greatest Stand-Ups edit

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) 01:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comedy Central Greatest Stand-Ups (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Blatant violation of WP:FU#Text_2, being a "A complete recreation of "Top 100" where the list has been selected in a creative manner". See also Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_51#Attorney_feedback. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lists exists. There is plenty of precedent for deleting templates that just lists what the lists already lists.Curb Chain (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2011 (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.

Template:Non-free Trainweb edit

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) 01:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Trainweb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Considering that (A) we have to treat TrainWeb images as garden variety non-free images due to the terms of TrainWeb's license, and (B) the template does not carry any special categorization with it for TrainWeb images, it would seem to be the case that this template is fully redundant to the normal {{Non-free fair use in}} template. Thus I contend that we don't need this additional template, and should delete it and switch the images that contain this tag to the regular non-free tag. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The licensing terms would only be applicable if we were distributing the images under the terms of the license. We aren't: we're using the images under fair use. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:46, 26 September 2011 (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.

Template:Root edit

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) 01:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Root (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a very simple mathematical function which can easily be achieved using parser functions ... almost. Here's the code.

{{#expr: abs({{{1}}})^(1/{{{2|2}}}) }}{{#ifexpr:{{{1}}}<0 and {{{2|2}}} mod 2 = 0 |i}}

So, it can handle negative numbers, which the ordinary parser function can't, wow.

{{root|-1}}, for example, gives "1i" (it should be "i" but ...)
{{root|-1|3}} gives "1" ... which is wrong ...
{{root|-1|4}} gives "1i" ... which is also wrong ...

It looks like negative numbers only work as long as the second parameter is undefined (or two, the default). So it seems to need some work. We could fix it up so that the range (i.e. possible outputs) is the set of complex numbers but wouldn't we want the domain (i.e. possible inputs) to be the complex numbers too? We'd then have a real fantastic template with amazing capacity ... which would never be used.

We don't need templates to give us complex roots of complex numbers. Let this be done by editors who know what they're doing. All we need is a simple root function for real numbers, for which there is a parser function. JIMp_talk·cont 05:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with most of these general-purpose mathematical templates, if they're really needed functionally for the project they should be moved into a library. This one only has a single non-test use, in a userbox at User:Quarma (which looks like it was compromised two years ago). As Jimp suggests, individual users who want this fucntionality in future can easily reimplement it (and maintain it in user space). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
userfy or delete, we don't need this for articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while it's certainly a nice tool, because the ParserFunctions extension doesn't support the calculation of square roots of negative numbers, it's pointless here. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. Lightmouse (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2011 (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.

Template:Add optional edit

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Add optional (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is very similar to {{addition}}. Here are the differences:

{{add optional}} accepts up to 100 parameters as opposed to {{addition}}'s 10.
{{add optional}} uses 100 #ifs whereas {{addition}} defaults to zeros.
{{add optional}} seems to have about one useful transclusion whereas {{addition}} seems to have about a dozen.

I suggest we merge them to {{addition}} (actually {{add}} or {{sum}} would be better) extending the capacity if needed. JIMp_talk·cont 06:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the author has made use of it a few times: makes sense to userfy if he still wants it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge with {{addition}}, renaming it {{add}} or {{sum}}. This one has more features and is backwards compatible with the other. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2011 (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.