Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 31

< August 30	September 1 >

August 31

Template:FirstBus

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

seems largely redundant to template:FirstGroup. Frietjes (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - redundant to the larger template, which seems to include all the same links. Robofish (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2012 (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.

Template:Felix, Net i Nika

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) 19:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Felix, Net i Nika (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As ever, the articles should be written first, then the navbox created, not the other way around. Robofish (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per above; all red links - this navbox is not useful.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:07, 4 September 2012 (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.

Template:Remove first word

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 replace with template:remove first word/any. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Remove first word (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I cannot see the point of this. Just don't type the first word and save us all some grief. pablo 17:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)  pablo 17:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• speedy keep. I use it. Just that nom does not sees the point, does not make an argument. What is the noms argument? -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the first words of my argument were missing. Okay. You supply an argument string to the template. It removes the first word and serves it back up to you. The end. If it does anything else, please educate me. pablo 22:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You force ask me to educate you? You better excuse for spoiling my time. -DePiep (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No I no force you to do one damn thing. Is voluntary project. pablo 16:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I self-correct. -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Templatespace is not a replacement for sed or basic copy skills. This template does not represent a reasonable tradeoff between remembering template syntax and just hitting the delete key. Its transclusion count reflects that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per above. This is completely pointless and overcomplicated. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That may be said of all string handling templates. To me, it does its job greatly. And, checked, more efficient than other options. btw, why would it matter that you don't see the point? -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Sorry, but those who have argued above for deletion simply don't understand what the template is for. You would never use it directly in a page; it's used inside another template to do further processing on that template's argument(s). It has a "sibling" template, {{remove first word/any}}, which does exactly the same but handles non-ASCII characters (hence the "any" in the name). If you look at what uses the "any" version you'll see that it is used in the taxobox templates all over Wikipedia. {{Remove first word}} isn't used very much because it fails if non-ASCII characters are present. I guess you could just make it into a redirect to the essential {{remove first word/any}}, although I also suspect that some uses of that template should use this one, which is more efficient if you know that its argument doesn't contain any accented letters.

(For those who don't do template programming, let me give an example. {{Select species}} is used in creating taxoboxes and needs to remove the first word from its argument. To display details about a taxon, the members of the automatic taxobox template family need to know the name of the taxon and how it's made up. Suppose the taxon is a species, with a two-word name of the form Junkia junkii. To make editors' lives easier:

• If the taxon name isn't supplied as a parameter, the taxobox template tries to use the page title, which will often be the same. But this means that the page title needs to be split into Junkia and junkii, the name of the genus and the species epithet. The genus is found by using one of the two "first word" templates, the species by using one of the two "remove first word" templates.
• The taxon name can often be supplied to the taxobox templates using |taxon=Junkia junkii rather than |genus=Junkia and |species=junkii. Decomposing the taxon parameter again needs "first word" and "remove first word" templates.

In this example, why isn't the more efficient {{remove first word}} used instead of {{remove first word/any}}? One reason is that scientific names can contain the hybrid symbol, ×.)

I hope that it's clear that although not much used, this template is a useful part of the set of string handling templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• • That's a rational enough use in itself, but the transclusion count suggests that it isn't actually used in a single article. {{Remove first word/any}}, however, is, and thus should be moved over this title. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. pablo 16:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The /any subpage could have its own name indeed. But as with all string manipulation templates, the current one could be more efficient in controlled situations. Since string manipulation is a heavy job, such optimizations could be critical. In other words, if I need it within a template where the simpler (cheaper) one can be used, that should be available. So the functions should not be folded into one name. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

We do not retain unused templates simply because they are elegant. Moreover, we do not typically fork templates simply for efficiency purposes (c.f. Wikid77's numerous "fast" citation templates). Moreover, even {{remove first word/any}} has only ~2000 transclusions, so this is nowhere near pressing enough to be particularly bothered about performance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Currently I use this one (in sandboxes, due). It is a good one. I researched newPP cost even before this tread appeared (conclusion: best template for the job). -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not "nonsense" that we do not retain unused templates or fork for imagined performance problems. If you wish to play about with templates then do so in your userspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You argumented: [not for] elegance. This is an irrelevant reasoning. As we also do not retain a page "because it is created on a Friday". So I say nonsense. You argumented: [not] fork .. for efficiency. Yes we do. String manipulation has many examples, for good reasons, including recent contributions by Wikid77 ;-). As for WP:PERF you invoke: When depth going near 40, it is an issue. Problems are not imagined, I ran into them and had to find another solution (this template!). I do not play, I am working in a sandbox, as any good template editor would do. You point to Wikid77's templates: Sure otherstuffexists, but at least you could know they were disapproved for other reasons than "elegance" or "efficiency". I note that in this reply you do not continue your arguments, you change topic. Now a question to bring things forward: what alternative do you suggest when this one would be deleted? -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I already stated that {{remove first word/any}} should be moved over this template. If people want to work on performance improvements then they are welcome to do so in userspace. Wikid77's approach of starting random experimental templates in templatespace has been rejected by the community, and the rationale behind that decision applies equally here as well. The rest of your reply appears to be talking past me, and I can only assume that's a language-barrier problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There are other pairs of templates which differ in the same way, e.g. {{str index}} and {{str index any}}. So even if this template were to be deleted, the "any" version should not be moved to a different title. Template names in logical sets of templates should be kept consistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the slash that's the problem. A move to {{remove first word any}} would work as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

re CC thumperward: I replied to elegance, efficiency and WP:PERF, words you introduced yourself here. What you call "language-barrier" might be about following your own argumentation. Then, your move over conclusion differs from your earlier comment here. -DePiep (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, what I'm calling a language barrier is your repeated use of awkward English in conjunction with making replies which appear to misinterpret my comments. Better to attribute that to a simple communication problem than to assume that you were deliberately misunderstanding me. As for your last comment, there is no inconsistency here: this template should be deleted, and then the template currently named as a sub-template of it should be moved over its old name (or to an alternative title, per my comment to Peter coxhead just above). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

1. language barrier or deliberately misunderstanding -- you omit the possibility that I do understand you right and that I do nullify your argument. As for you reasoning and logics, there may be another source for misunderstanding. 2. Templatespace is not a replacement for sed [sic] or basic copy skills [...] was your first post here, but for /any (which does the same) you accept just that. 3. Typically, nowhere do you response to the efficientcy aspects (newPP, transclusion depth, perfomrmance issues) raised here. By three different editors, not just me (and let me explain beforehand: number of transclusions does not relate to efficiency). And 4. saying that I play [1] while I am developing in a sandbox is more like a personal jab than an argument, and you should have known that. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, sed is a well-known Unix utility which is used for string manipulation. That was not a typo. I appreciate that it is perhaps not directly relevant to this template's use case, but the point I meant to impart was that there are alternatives to direct string manipulation to custom templates. Point #2 was not meant to mean that string manipulation is not in templatespace's role at all, but merely that such uses should be carefully examined rather than deployed at will. My response to the efficiency argument was that templatespace is not the place to experiment with template forks for efficiency: you responded directly to that (by calling it "nonsense"), so it's not clear why you think I did not actually address it. Lastly, I apologise for the use of the word "play": you're obviously acting in good faith here rather than just messing around, and I apologise for implying otherwise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarifying reply. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong keep: I have studied these string-handling templates for years, and there is a distinct speed advantage to using this template, {Remove first word} versus the diacritic-friendly {Remove first word/any}, which can handle the numerous accented letters but slower (depending on string length). It would be unwise to delete this template, especially at this time, when template speed is being questioned for total, complex rewrites in Lua script, when perhaps use of more-efficient utility templates could avoid weeks/months of rewrites in Lua, just because the extra speed made the difference, where Lua scripts would not be much faster than efficiently updated templates. Plus, even when Lua would be faster, the prior templates should remain for speed-comparison tests, to provide evidence of faster operation rather than "hunches" that a deleted template would have been slower if only it still existed for comparison. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. -DePiep (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment on template efficiency

After the nomination here, it appeared that another template has a same functionality: {{remove first word/any}}. It covers even more (accented characters). I get the impression that, apart from the nom, most contributors here want (at least) one such template to be available. Since the /any accepts a broader input, that one surely is to be kept. Now since string manipulation can be critically heavy in server load (parser activity, counted in the newPP metrics; think deep transclusion depth out of 40 levels allowed). So maybe, the more limited one {{remove first word}} could be useful to reduce that parser load. That would reduce the load in controlled, limited situations (namely: when the template programmer knows that only straight abc characters are used). That would imply we should keep both templates, to serve both situations. To prove/disprove such an advantage, I did a research.

Researched: I compared the newPP numbers for both templates, with equal input. So I compared {{remove first word|abc def}} with {{remove first word/any|abc def}}. And this for more input situations. I did not analyse the internal code, though the templates seem to use different approaches. Here are the results:

newPP metrics comparing two templates

1. {{remove first word|a b}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 869/1000000 Post-expand include size: 712/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 494/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> {{remove first word/any|a b}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 812/1000000 Post-expand include size: 712/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 494/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> 2. {{remove first word|y z}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 917/1000000 Post-expand include size: 712/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 542/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> {{remove first word/any|y z}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 860/1000000 Post-expand include size: 712/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 542/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> 3. {{remove first word|abc def}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 1023/1000000 Post-expand include size: 784/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 1025/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> {{remove first word/any|abc def}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 964/1000000 Post-expand include size: 784/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 1025/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> 4. {{remove first word|xyz abc}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 1005/1000000 Post-expand include size: 784/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 980/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> {{remove first word/any|xyz abc}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 946/1000000 Post-expand include size: 784/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 980/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> 5. {{remove first word|abcdefgh ijk}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 1075/1000000 Post-expand include size: 967/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 1827/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> {{remove first word/any|abcdefgh ijk}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 1016/1000000 Post-expand include size: 967/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 1827/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> 6. {{remove first word|ABCDEFGH IJK}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 1231/1000000 Post-expand include size: 967/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 2607/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> {{remove first word/any|ABCDEFGH IJK}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 1172/1000000 Post-expand include size: 967/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 2607/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> 7. {{remove first word|pqrstuvw xyz}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 1165/1000000 Post-expand include size: 967/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 2277/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> {{remove first word/any|pqrstuvw xyz}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 1106/1000000 Post-expand include size: 967/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 2277/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> 8. {{remove first word|A}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 546/1000000 Post-expand include size: 648/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 156/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 15/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> {{remove first word/any|A}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 540/1000000 Post-expand include size: 648/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 156/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 15/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> 9. {{remove first word|A BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 3109/1000000 Post-expand include size: 2033/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 10080/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> {{remove first word/any|A BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ}}<!-- NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 3037/1000000 Post-expand include size: 2033/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 10080/2048000 bytes Highest expansion depth: 16/40 Expensive parser function count: 0/500 --> 10. note: Maximum length of first word is 14 characters. More characters will produce wrong output. This for both templates equally. {{remove first word|kmnopqrstuvwxyz abc}} -> kmnopqrstuvwxyz abc {{remove first word/any|kmnopqrstuvwxyz abc}} -> kmnopqrstuvwxyz abc

Result: In all checked input cases, both templates use equal resources, with slightly less by {/any} in "Preprocessor node count" (about 1 to 5% less). So, if I am correct here, there is no reason to maintain {{remove first word}}: the broader one is not more expensive.

Conclusion, I suggest: Delete template {{remove first word}}, then Move {{remove first word/any}} to this name (leave Redirect behind). I see no reason to change the main page name. -DePiep (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! So we've been engaging in a discussion whose starting point is false! Seems a knockdown argument. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

On the sunny side: the nom can get their way (because the template will be deleted, even though only for a few seconds), thumperward's early plan will be rewarded (move /any to the top page) although for a different reason, and the rest of us keep a template we want/need. -DePiep (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• The intended use of the template was for instances such as {remove first word|PAGENAME}, which could recover (for instance) the species name rubra from the page Quercus rubra. I can't remember whether this template was used in the Template:Automatic taxobox plexus or whether I found a different way of doing it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You used {{remove first word/any}}, possibly because although scientific names themselves should not contain accented characters, the hybrid sign × appears. For efficiency purposes it's possible that a version of {{remove first word}} extended to include this symbol only ought to be employed. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2012 (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.

Template:Archiveme

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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

I have no idea why this may be considered useful. We love templates and backlogs, but archiving page is not harder than adding this template! Bulwersator (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Was originally created as part of a limited-scope bot project. After I gave up on that, it has been lightly used by people who presumably were unsure about how to archive or possibly nervous about upsetting people by moving contents of talk pages. Seems it's still being used in that capacity to a limited extent. Overall, I'm fairly indifferent about the future of the template. Poorleno (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I still don't understand why it's nominated for deletion. It helps readers and editors realize that talk pages are too long to care about. Not everyone knows the configurations. Even copy-and-paste is undesirable, and moving page is easier; neither guarantee exact positive results, but they are still simple more than configuring bots. --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• As one of the project's most active talk archivers, I can testify that archiving is almost always very much harder than tagging unless the talk page in question is very tidy. This template is primarily used on pages that have never been archived. Such pages are often train wrecks which desperately need some love: this tag helps with that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Chris Cunningham, since some talk pages are incredible messes, so archiving them is nontrivial. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Chris Cunningham & 76.65.128.252. Serves a useful purpose, as archiving most certainly is harder than tagging. As one who has archived many a talk page, I can personally attest to this.--JayJasper (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep just looking through Category:Archive requests, it is quite evident that people do use this template if they aren't sure how to archive a page. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as creator of template per reasons stated by other people above. Poorleno (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2012 (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.

Template:Editnotices/Page/Topeka, Kansas

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; deleted as G6 by The ed17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Topeka, Kansas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer needed. The Google thing was a silly joke 2 years ago, and there seems to have been no effort since then to move the page to Google. Furthermore, the page is move-protected anyway, so this edit notice tells people not to do something that they can't do in the first place. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I probably meant to put an expiry on it but didn't. It ought to be deleted at this point. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:10, 31 August 2012 (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.

Template:Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends

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) 19:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Everything except the episode list redirects to the main page. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - no need for a navbox here. Robofish (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2012 (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.