Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 23

< December 22	December 24 >

December 23 edit

Template:Nine Muses 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) 02:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nine Muses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fails WP:NENAN. Just two relevant links. Even the discography won't give links to more albums or songs. (Backlink and "related articles" don't count for relevant links). main article does not give links to any band members. The Banner talk 22:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 13:48, 24 December 2013 (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:Indian cuisine 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 relisted on 2014 January 4 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian cuisine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cuisine of India (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pakistani cuisine 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 relisted on 2014 January 4 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistani cuisine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cuisine of Pakistan (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Releases cdrtools 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) 02:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Releases cdrtools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Version history is of little general interest, as there will always be only one stable and one development version, so this information should instead be kept on the (by now, obscure) software's homepage. This isn't Windows or Linux, where many versions are in general use and version naming is confusing. 178.7.182.200 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There are over 100 pages (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Version) which show version histories. Many of them are for ordinary software. Moreover, the version history of cdrtools is valuable information that most readers would find interesting but difficult to find in the official site. So I think there is absolutely no reason to delete the version history of the cdrtools article. Thank you. Ekkt0r (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the only information valueable to the reader is the current version, which is found in the infobox already. Can you name an example where a encyclopedia user may need to know about anything else than the current two version numbers from this table? They are straightforward, there are no branches (because there is only a single developer anyway). --188.104.80.39 (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a novice GNU/Linux user having problems with cdrkit. He/she searches the web, discovers that there is an original software (cdrtools) and that it is not included in his/her operating system. The first thing that user will want to know is whether cdrtools will solve his/her problem. If that user can easily find out that cdrtools is being actively maintained and updated, he/she will probably give it a try. And given that Jörg Schilling is a very skilled developper who does fix the bugs of his software, most users find out that cdrtools solves their problems. Many GNU/Linux distributions patronize their users, deciding for them which software they should use. I think this is sad, but I can understand that they have the right to do so. That being said, I don't like being told what is worth and what is not worth being written in Wikipedia. As long as I follow the guidelines and write sensible information everyone can read on other articles, I should not be threatened with reverts and page deletions. Wikipedia users deserve the right to find valid contributions from the community. This should be true even for articles about software some people don't like. Version histories are given in Wikipedia articles for a lot of software and there are no rules against that. I feel like I'm being sensored in Wikipedia by a few users and this is very upsetting. So please consider not deleting this template. Thank you. Ekkt0r (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete single instance template pretending to be a table. There's no conceivable reason why this should be hard to edit, it's material that should be part of the article's coding, not a template. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might have noticed that I did add a link to the template in the section of the main article when I inserted the template. I have also added, this evening, a tip in the section of the main article to help those who would not notice the link.

Regarding the use of a template for the version history, there are many other articles using similar release templates, and most of them are only used once.

So I do not think I broke any rules. And I am always very careful when I edit any page. So please consider not deleting this template. Thank you. Ekkt0r (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the archives of deletion discussions here at TfD, you'll note that single use templates are frequently deleted, especially when all they do is boilerplate some article element onto the page for no reason other than to have a template hold the data. The template provides no multiarticle information, nor is the article heavily edited so as to need to separate out a template to prevent edit conflicts. And several of the other software articles have their version tables directly placed into the article, not as a separate template. If there are any other articles with templated version tables, they all need to be substituted and deleted. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but to my knowledge there are no rules against templated version tables. I chose to use a templated version history because I think this is worth and because I think cdrtools will last forever (and will continue to be actively maintained and updated). That said, if there is a rule or an objective reason for merging the version history in the article, I promise I'll do so.Ekkt0r (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the "General G. O. Squier class" templates under deletion lower down this page. Those are just boilerplates, as your template is, and those are used on more than one page, but are still up for subst-and-delete because they do not function as templates, as yours also do not function as a template.

On a further note, the way you link to your template is not the standard way Wikipedia links to templates. Having the header link to the template is non-intuitive. The edit link leaves many users unable to edit the content, because they won't see the coding, and won't read your note.

-- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You have convinced me. The table is now in the main article and we can delete the template I had created. I hope this will satisfy everyone. Thanks.

-- Ekkt0r (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having "yet another template" is just half of the story. I was mostly concerned whether this information is useful and whether it belongs into an encyclopedia at all (templated or not)! --188.98.221.232 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's editing of content. The template itself is a WP:CFORK of a type which should not exist separately. As other software articles seem to have these version tables, discussion of the desirability of this information should take place on the article's talk page, or at WP:SOFTWARE. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be the agreement —PC-XT+ 21:48, 29 December 2013 (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:Mediocre American Man Trilogy 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 relisted on 2014 January 3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:27, 3 January 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.