Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 7

< March 6	March 8 >

March 7

Template:Om Prakash Chautala

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) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Om Prakash Chautala (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No template but an article. And the article is a bad quality duplication of Om Prakash Chautala The Banner talk 22:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. It's not a template, it's an article-copy in the template namespace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 7 March 2013 (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:Wolf Alice

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) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Wolf Alice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NENAN. This template has only one blue link, so it's pointless; better to just link directly rather than cluttering up the screen with the template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 7 March 2013 (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:USLargestCities

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) 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Per WP:NENAN, not everything needs a navbox. The city articles to which this template is attached already have too many navboxes even without this one, and this grouping is an arbitraily-cutuff set based on a crude (and potentially misleading) factoid about the cities.
In nearly every example I have checked, the lede section of the article includes a link to the List of United States cities by population, which presents the list in a more usable format with much more data, all handily arranged in a sortable table. The list also explains the inclusion criteria, which is crucial for data such as this: the population of "city" depends to a large degree on much how much of its surrounding metropolitan area is included in the city boundaries. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• delete, the article is enough, and this just adds to the clutter since all of these cities will already have a large number of navboxes at the foot. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• strong keep, although valid points on "too many navboxes" isn't that just a natural growing pain of a successful wikipedia (imagine what articles will look like in 2023!), also the cities 75-100 are not too crowded and the New Yorks and Chicagos have the option to leave the navbox out, why delete a navbox when it is optional to add, why not just fail to add it to a NYC or LA? "Too many navboxes" is kind of a false claim since wikipedia has allowed collapsibility. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply'. The number of navboxes is indeed a "growing pain"; it grows to be more of a pain all the time unless we keep it in check. The more navboxes we have on any given article, the less useful any of them are, because they get lost in the clutter. That's why we need to trim out the less important ones, such as this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• delete, note that potentially we could collapse the whole WP - or large chunks of it - into a page. Collapsing is no excuse to download marginally related data. If it goes this way, WP articles in 2023 will probably be a whole mess (ôr maybe we'll get WPBrowsers, specialised in splitting mega-templated articles into shorter pages?... :-) who knows? Right now, this is a bad idea - Nabla (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2013 (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:Albanians image array

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) 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Albanians image array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Croats image array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Iranians image array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I merged these single use templates with the corresponding articles after the first template was listed in Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates containing non-free files. this does increase the size of the infobox a bit, but it circumvents the issue of non-free images being used outside of article space. a better solution is probably to create a single composite image, rather than the larger array of images, but that hasn't happened (yet). Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2013 (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:Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall EP track listing

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) 22:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall EP track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. With only three tracks, this can be solved my normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 11:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• delete, a navbox and/or succession links are enough Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• delete, unnecessary. In article wikilinking should suffice for this EP that doesn't even have its own article, and the three-track version only released as an iTunes exclusive. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:48, 13 March 2013 (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:Microsoft operating systems

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, although there could be consensus to merge {{Microsoft Windows family}} into {{Microsoft operating systems}}, so you may wish to solicit more feedback from users watching Template:Microsoft Windows family, since that template was not formally tagged for discussion. (revised closing) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Microsoft operating systems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hi. I propose either merging {{Microsoft Windows family}} into this template or merging this template into {{Microsoft}}. After all, what is the use of having all three of these on one article when one or two is enough?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Merge to {{Microsoft}} would slot nicely into that incomplete row of OSes. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Merge {{Microsoft Windows family}} into {{Microsoft operating systems}}. One template for all Micosoft's OSs is enough, and it can be achieved without overloading the template. However, {{Microsoft}} is already quite big, and merging the lot in there would create an overly-cluttered template.
  As to having all of them on one article, I can't see how that would ever be appropriate. If some articles have too many navboxes, then remove the less specific ones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete (or "Subst and delete") no-longer-relevant stuff; split unrelated but still relevant (i.e. non-obsolete, current) stuff into separate templates. (Agree that there's no need to have multiple overlapping templates). Rationale: Templates are useful for finding related and relevant material. I think that obsolete or no-longer-relevant stuff should be split off into separate templates or deleted from templates. Xenix and OS/2 are no longer associated with Microsoft (apparently IBM did most of the development for OS/2). All the versions of DOS (including maybe the DR DOS clone) are no longer of much interest, so maybe don't need to be in a template. Obsolete versions of Windows (DOS-based and 9.x) maybe either no longer need a template or can share a separate template. Other MS-related templates seem to contain a lot of "discontinued" (no longer very relevant) entries. Keep up the good work! LittleBen (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:RECENTISM, and how would you subst and delete a navigational footer? That seems a very odd thing to do. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Hello. I have to agree with you on both account. Substing is a very odd thing to do in this case with no benefit attached. Besides, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and in many accounts keeps age out of its decisions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• I would say merge all three into {{Microsoft}} and have it use Template:Navbox with collapsible groups instead of Template:Navbox to make it look cleaner. — T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 01:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello, T13. The "all three" merger requires additional consensus, especially the Windows → Microsoft part. (In fact, I expect heavy opposition.) Now, should we assume that for the time being, you support merging the nominated template into Microsoft? Or is it a case of either this or that? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge {{Microsoft Windows family}} into {{Microsoft operating systems}}. Hi everyone. Being the author of the template in question I think there is no big issue leaving everything the way it is. If you really believe that 3 templates are too much, then the logical solution would be to merge {{Microsoft Windows family}} into {{Microsoft operating systems}}. The hierarchy of these templates clearly is:
  • {{Microsoft}}
    • {{Microsoft operating systems}}
      • {{Microsoft Windows family}}

Also please remember that there is a family of similar OS templates that should also be kept in sync regarding their structure:

• {{Apple Inc. operating systems}}
• {{DEC operating systems}}
• {{IBM operating systems}}

So deleting this template would destroy this basic concept. Also, I agree with Codename Lisa regarding keeping age out of decisions. Xenix and OS/2 were important steps in the early history of Microsoft operating systems. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that {{Microsoft Windows family}} should be merged into {{Microsoft operating systems}} which in turn should be merged into {{Microsoft}}. As far as the Apple, DEC, and IBM ones go, they should all be merged into one template as well, in sections if needed, and all should use Template:Navbox with collapsible groups instead of Template:Navbox to make it look cleaner. Set all the sections to collapsed by default, except for the ones immediately relevant to the article they are on. So for example, on the Windows 12 page, all would be collapsed except the section for Microsoft Windows family by default. This VERY easily lets the visitor to navigate to a much wider array of pages to do their research instead of having to search for each piece. As a visitor, I've found navigating pages on this wiki a nightmare and have many times given up and sought my research elsewhere. This turns visitors and editors away, which I don't think is what is the goal here. Better navigation boxes with more potentially relevant links and less searching. — T13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 12:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, guys. I'd like to reiterate that no decision about merging {{Microsoft}} and {{Microsoft Windows family}} can be made in this discussion or without prior notice of the community. They are known highly visible templates with a lot of contributors. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2013 (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:Duration

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) 22:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

This is evidently a completely pointless template. Not only is it quicker to simply type in the duration, but templates have been known to slow down page loading time more than plain text. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: I always thought it was weird to use this template instead of just typing in the length. I think that we'd do just fine if the template was deleted. WikiRedactor (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I address your misunderstanding in my comment, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• comment, clearly the purpose of this template is to add class="duration", class="min", and class="s". whether or not this metadata is useful is a separate issue. Frietjes (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, typing in the duration is much easier. In addition, manually typing in the time can also provide more information, for instance, the theatrical running time and the director's uncut time. And plus, the number of the seconds in the movie always varies. Explorser (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The template is not intended to be used for films, or other hour-minute durations. (that's not to say it couldn't be modified to do so in the future). I address your other misapprehensions in my comment, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing wrong with the template. Peaking at what links here, the template is currently used in thousands of articles. It clearly serves a purpose.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: The opinion that it's pointless is not good enough rationale. It is currently used in numerous articles, and it should be determined first whether or not the metadata is useful. Dan56 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Per status. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong keep. That template is useful. No reason to delete. VítoR™  • (D) 01:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unsure While I do agree that a template that is used in thousands of articles deserves to stay, I'm really not sure wether this template IS that useful. What's the difference between using this template and actually typing the time in? I honestly don't see any change, Nor do I see any purpose to it, but since I'm not into the technical stuff, I really don't know what technical aspect this template delivers. I know that Template:Start date has a regional change aspect to it, does this template have anything similar to that? RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 01:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I agree with Explorser and think just using regular words would be a lot easier. alexanderao (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I address your comment in mine, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment On second thought, I'd like to hear first from one of the Metadata Wikiproject contributors that were asked to comment here. Knowing whether it is technically more useful than plainly writing out "mm:ss" would decide for me. Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: I have to agree with the nominator on both points and include one of my own: This template causes hardship, clutter and performance impact and offers no significant benefit. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  P.S. This template does offer a benefit which Status might want to consider, albeit not a significant one: Many people feel more comfortable using a template. It helps them project a false image of being official – for themselves mostly. This false feeling must be fought. It is important for users to understand that templatew are created by the same people who edit Wikipedia and the mere fact that one content is created by a template does not mean that it is policy- or MOS-supported. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • • I don't mean to sound rude, but is English your first language? Because I really don't understand a word you just said...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I address your claims in my comment, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Hello. Thanks for the comment. I understand that you believe microformat emission is a significant benefit. Although I cannot exactly agree with you, I believe less experienced editors should sometimes trust the experience of their more seasoned colleagues. Therefore, for the time being, I am taking back my delete vote. (I reserve myself the right to put it back if a strong reason to do so was found.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment No strong feelings about whether to keep or delete, but if the decision is made to delete, I hope it will not be necessary to manually change all the entries in which it has been used.InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, unfortunately, if this template is deleted, over 500 pages will have to be manually changed. That is, if there is no bot that can actually perform such an action. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 05:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Having the time in a standardised format is a good goal, and I think the template works towards that end. I would like to see the template modified to remove some of the ambiguity (hh:mm vs mm:ss, for example), but I think throwing the whole thing out is not a solution. British Ben (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This is because templates make everything uniform and keeps some semblance of structure around the ever growing vine of an encyclopedia. So, the more we can standardize everything and not let this encyclopdia delve into some lawless place and create a hapless mess, the better for it.HotHat (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

{{So}} {{we}} {{might}} {{as}} {{well}} {{just}} {{write}} {{like}} {{this}}{{,}} {{then}}{{?}} Lachlan Foley 19:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes! Just kidding, I don't want that because those would serve no purpose. This template is similar to start date, which is not even remotely being considered for deletion, now is it? Oh wait, you may or some other editor may in fact do just that! Finally, this template does serve a purpose.HotHat (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Delete There are always so many versions of albums/EPs, so I don't think that listing just one length is useful. It's useless. Spyman05 (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep (or strong keep, as if the qualifier gives added credence). The claim that the template is "is evidently completely pointless" is bogus; the evidence is in the template's documentation, which explains that it applies classes used by the hAudio microformat emitted by the infoboxes in which it is used. In other words, it makes the duration property machine readable; understandable to computer programmes which can aggregate, chart or otherwise process our content. There is strong community support for the use of such templates in infoboxes, as the RfC for the use of {{Start date}} family showed. Other false statements are also made above; the use of this template does not preclude multiple values. Users who find the template too complicated to type, of any exist, can simply enter plain text, and another user or bot can apply the template later. The vague claim of "projecting a false image of being official" is unsubstantiated and without foundation. The performance impact is minimal and we are enjoined not to trouble ourselves over such matters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong keep. There are sometimes different lenghts of the same release; in case of music, album vers, extended vers, radio vers, all which look good in the template. Adding them to a separate section just wouldn't look good, plus you'd have to look for it. You could also argue about deleting everything in a template, since you could add that info simply into the article. Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a useful template and serves a function. Per Keeps above.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• I think folk are being a little harsh on the nominator, here (and there are certainly plenty of non-useful arguments to keep above, such as "it is being used"): on first glance it certainly looks overblown to wrap times up in two layers of markup (wikicode and then HTML), but if done right this should have only a very low performance impact and should result in very clean output. What's more, this sort of material is invaluable for exporting our data to other databases and so on. That glosses over the broader argument over whether having a single authoritative value in most cases is correct (MusicBrainz, which is easily the largest and highest-quality crowdsourced music reference, often includes dozens such values for different releases of the same track), but that's irrelevant to this debate. If we believe that having durations specified in a standard format is useful, then we should mark them up semantically as durations if possible. That's what this does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello, guys. I think some contributors here are starting to become way too harsh on the nominator, with some comments bordering on personal attacks. Even worse, some of these harsh comments are even less technically accurate than that of the nominator. Give the other parameters of the situation, may I propose a WP:SNOW-based closure? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Per the reasons given by Andy Mabbett above. While some users may not understand the need for templates (specifically their use for microformats), their ignorance should not dictate the removal of said templates. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with the nominator says, but deleting the template is going to cause problems. We'd have to put in the durations of every single album/EP, which will be a ridiculous amount of work. And people, can we cut the patronising attitude? It's unnecessary. Some of you are taking this far too seriously and to heart, as if the guy's being offensive. Ithinkilostmyheadache (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. This template makes the data readable by outside resources looking for the hAudio microformat, and the likelihood is that such data is useful, and will be of increasing use in the future. The delete arguments are unconvincing: I've tested the impact on load time of pages where it is used and have been unable to detect any increase in load time due to the template; the existence of a template does not mean that new or uninformed editors cannot provide duration as plain text, as more knowledgeable editors can add the template later. --RexxS (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: After reading the points brought up in the discussion, I'd actually now prefer to keep the template, a) for the metadata it helps to organize, and b) the absurd amount of work it would require to correct articles with the deleted template. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: No, are you on drugs? No. Just no. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment, your reasoning is invalid. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 05:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Apparently this template in fact DOES have some technical shit about it. I'm completely okay with that! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 04:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment, your reasoning is invalid as well. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 05:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you or have you not read this massive discussion above? RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Just to spite you for not crediting the above votes. Also because I don't want to go back and edit articles. Dappl (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong keep: For its usefulness with the hAudio format, and because no one who has advocated deletion has any proposal for what to do with the many, many pages currently using the template. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: We cannot propose to delete the template without having a reasonable alternative. As it stands, many of us have acknowledged the amount of manual work it would require to tie together the loose ends created by the deletion. Until a viable suggestion emerges to mitigate this work, I vote to keep the template. Wyldephang (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Keep It's convenient so I see no reason to delete in the pages its used in. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and close No policy-based rationale has been presented by the nominator. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Snow Keep - If you're a less technically-minded user (like me), you can ignore this template. If not, it appears to be highly beneficial. Also, I don't see how it would slow down a page substantially, unless there were a few thousand iterations, or you're using dialup. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It's an immediate countermeasure to anyone who accidentally or purposely(vandals) typed something say more than 60 seconds. The template is also simple enough for the layman to use. ⊾maine12329⊿ talk 06:28, 10 March 2013 (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:Vecmath

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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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

The reasons are explained here in detail. I created {{vecmath}} template and documentation, and all is completely accidental and redundant and will never be useful for anything. Obviously if there is ever the need to create something with that name it can always be recreated. Please delete. Thanks. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 08:17, 7 March 2013 (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.