Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 21 December 23 >

December 22 edit

Template:Denial of Mass Killings 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2016 December 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (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).

Template:SOTD protected 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2016 (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).

Note: See also previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2#Template:FS_number. – Fayenatic London 04:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Join 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wracking my brain for the last four hours trying to figure out where this would be useful. I have yet to come up with an answer. The /doc gives examples like {{join|hello|world}} → helloworld, but why type the extra text just to do that? I could maybe see this being used for parameters, but {{{1}}}{{{2}}} is just as easy (if not easier) to type as {{join|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}}} Primefac (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template {join} does far more than "{1}{2}" as it also removes newlines or spaces between parameters: {{join| AA  |  BB}} gives: AABB, which {1}{2} does not, while {join} can remove newlines within text. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we don't need it, just use {{trim}} or {{#if:1|{{{1}}}}}{{#if:1|{{{2}}}}}. Frietjes (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with {{trim}} is the break caused by newlines and trim separates parts by spaces, while {join} connects the parts directly without newlines which would break onto a separate line. Compare, below, in joining digits of pi (π):
    • {trim | 3.1415926535
      89793238} gives: 3.1415926535

89793238

    • {join | 3.1415926535
      | 89793238} gives: 3.141592653589793238.
    So, {join} actually joins the text parts together, as a solid line, while {trim} leaves the text split between lines, unable to join as solid text.
    As for {{#if:1|{{{1}}}}}{{#if:1|{{{2}}}}}, the problem is the inability to handle blank parameters, plus the complexity of a user writing so many curly braces above 3 parameters: {{#if:1|...}}{{#if:1|...}}{{#if:1|...}}. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you need to split the digits of pi onto more than one line, and then recombine them? It's about as bad as the one usage I saw (which I removed) which had {{join|https://|www.example.com}}. Making a template for the sake of a template is not how this works. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    lol, I'm not an idiot. if you want to trim {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} use {{trim|{{{1|}}}}}{{trim|{{{2|}}}}}. template editors clearly haven't needed this since it's not being used by anyone but you. by the way, if you really want to trim whitespace, use {{#invoke:string|replace|...}} which doesn't require that you stick the pipe between the 3.1415926535 and 89793238. try it: 3.141592653589793238 and see. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, seems useless to me. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the examples above. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep & template_talk. A TfD is the wrong forum to ask technical questions about template operations. The appropriate place to start is Template_talk:Join. This TfD entry should never have been created without discussing first at template_talk. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a technical question about the operation. I know exactly how the template works. I simply see zero reason for it to exist. Additionally, there is no requirement to discuss a template pre-TFD on the talk (though with merger discussions this can be useful). Primefac (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful generic tool to allow making the wikicode of articles more readable. At first sight I thought this was redundant to the basic technology of splitting text across lines (lines that are separated by a single newline in wikicode, are displayed as single line). However, there are cases where this doesn't work nicely and the template could help: for example with elements of formatting that break off at a newline (like italics), or with tabulations (these do get displayed as such). I'd suggest creating a redirect at {{concatenate}}. – Uanfala (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked at the examples above, I've looked at the single in-the-wild application of this template, and I've tried to stretch my imagination as far as I could, and I still see no valid application. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a totally unnecessary template. As Frietjes notes, whitespace can be removed with {{#invoke:string|replace|...}}. The only other function was splitting code onto different lines to make it more readable but this can easily be done using <!-- --> as exemplified here. Jimp 17:05, 29 December 2016 (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).

Template:1866 college soccer records 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2016 December 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (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).

Template:Annotated image/Mollusc generalized 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, previously tagged by Evolution and evolvability almost a year ago, but never listed. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2016 (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).

Template:World alphabets 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, appears to have been replaced by other sidebars Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (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).

Template:World motor vehicle production by country in YYYY 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).

The result of the discussion was merge with the list article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, could be merged with an article? Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2016 (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).

Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in YYYY 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).

The result of the discussion was merge into an article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, could be merged with an article? Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I created some of the earlier ones of this set). These templates hold valuable and well sourced data. They represent an integrated set, and are chained one to another. All it needs to make them more accessible is to place one in an appropriate article. -- de Facto (talk). 20:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:DeFacto, why not just merge them together into an article, as suggested in the thread above? Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2016 (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).

Template:What We Live For tracks 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2016 (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).

Template:WP Physics Participants list 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2016 (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).

Template:Uw-thumb3 and Template:Uw-thumb2 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).

The result of the discussion was keep {{Uw-thumb2}}, delete {{Uw-thumb3}}. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that these templates be deleted (see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016 November 22#Template:Uw-thumb4) since really only one warning template should be necessary for a technical notice like this. General disruption tags should be used if a user is really blatantly ignoring this advice. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I wholeheartedly disagree. Fine that Uw-thumb4 was deleted but 2 and 3 are specific explanations for a specific case. What is the harm in having these templates? They've been used many, many times. Does it somehow hurt to have a detailed template explaining the issue? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forgetting the proper infobox syntax is not grounds for blocking someone.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:48, 22 December 2016 (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).

Template:UNSC Military 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Rob13Talk 09:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a pointless navigation box, the United Nations Security Council doesnt have a military organisation and the template doesnt appear to have any value as a navigation box. Certainly adds no value to the articles it has been placed in and over the years most countries have had a seat in the UNSC and adding them would make it even more unwieldy and useless. MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination -- these organizations don't have a strong enough connection for there to be a need to navigate between them. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per above. SC membership is not a natural defining property for these armed forces. --T*U (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2016 (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).

Convert template subpages 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. The discussion is quite messy due to the repeated bold !votes by a single contributor, but only one person appears to oppose deletion. More importantly, their arguments have been entirely refuted. There are no inaccuracies, just differences in rounding, differences which can be eliminated using an additional parameter. Note that I'm not deleting these all myself tonight. Feel free to tag them as WP:G6 after checking for transclusions. I'll slowly work at deleting these. ~ Rob13Talk 01:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3813 subpages of Convert. {{Convert}} has been changed to a Lua module, so I am nominating all subpages (except the /doc, /testcases, and /sandbox) listed in the Blacklist as being unused and unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a proposal to build a Keep_pages_Whitelist. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin/bot: This old-templates list blacklist is exactly the list of template pages to be deleted by this TfD -- if. -DePiep (talk)
DePiep, see my comment below. My nom covers every page except the /doc, /sandbox, and /testcases. Where is this second list coming from? Primefac (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Folding my multiple comments here for clarity. Arguments and links are below. My statement here is: User:Johnuniq/Convert templates is the normative (absolute) Blacklist: pages to be deleted per this TfD -- if. There is no formal Whitelist of pages that must be kept (informal lists were used to check the blacklist). (This edit is meant to clarify. If it feels like manipulation, tell me). -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)—-23:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note if absolutely desired, I can submit a BRFA to mark every page with the TFD notice, but as the creator of {{convert/}} has been notified (and they created a ton of the subpages) I feel that this is sufficient. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the non-doc, non-sandbox, non-testcases subpages. keeping these around just causes confusion. alternatively, but less desirable, would be to move them to subpages of {{convert/old}} and keep the {{convert/old}} subtree around. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
lol moving them under {{convert/old}} is cleaning up indeed, but they'd have to be edited. (Basic code builds subpagename composing like Convert/{{{1|}}}{{{3|}}}). -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac. Do I understand this correct: keep "doc/testcases/sandbox" actually means keep those like Template:Convert/doc, Template:Convert/sandbox, and Template:Convert/testcases, that is: "all subpages directly related to the current Lua version of {{Convert}}". (Seems pointless to keep a testcase for the TfDeleted templates). Could someone clarify/confirm this near the nom rationale? -DePiep (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those three subpages should be kept. I can see how my original wording could cause confusion. I have reworded to indicate that only those three were the exceptions. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for non-Lua wikis: There are some MediaWiki wikis which have been running the old, non-Lua version (from {{convert/old}}), as needed to debug that version. Also, the Lua version is being debugged to fix Lua calculation errors, as tested against the wikitext version precision:
       • {convert/old|105|-|106|F|C} gives:
       • {convert |105 |-|106 |F|C}} gives: 105–106 °F (41–41 °C).
    The Lua version for 4 years has shown nonsense range "41-41" for 2 different temperatures (and many other cases). Overall, I suppose "delete Convert/old" is a perennial request, and so an essay should be written as a canned explanation for why keep both Lua and the faster {convert/old}, and also explain why Lua is now slower than the wikitext template version. That essay could also log how many times users request to re-add features from the {convert/old} version. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've overlooked the fact that we perhaps have the bugfixes, under {convert/old}, which other wikis need, and so yes, the {convert/old} should be kept here to provide bugfixes to other wikis, as well as run testcases to fix the Lua calculation errors. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. fr-wiki isn't going to be calling the en- version of a template. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The other-language wikipedias have copied subtemplates from {convert/old} onto their wikis. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The °C-°F issue can be demonstrated manually, or by using settings available in {{Convert}} :-). -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as well past their use-by date. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lua-based {{Convert}} is three years old now, and has proven its purpose. Number of transclusions had doubled in these years. Not once this fallback option was needed. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait More time to consider exactly what pages are proposed for deletion is needed. About 3630 pages are affected and if the result is delete it would not be reasonable to expect the closing admin to guess which pages should be deleted. A list of old templates is here but it needs a little more checking and polishing—all pages that are not part of the nomination need to be removed from that list to simplify the process. I will do some work on that but this is a bad time of year to discuss such a large nomination. There are more exceptions than the doc/testcases/sandbox mentioned above. Jimp should be notified and be given time to respond. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the Wait request. Johnuniq, you say 'remove' from that list to keep the Lua-related pages. (That would leave the formal blacklist then). Don't you think that categorising the Keep pages would be (more) helpful? What does the bot prefer? -DePiep (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there should be a list of all pages that are part of this TfD so participants can review items without wading through category pages. Also, if the TfD is closed as delete, it would be better if there is a list which links only to the affected pages. The old template list should now show items in this TfD, and should not show any other pages. I put some notes on the talk page. I don't know if a category would be helpful for a closing admin but it would be very unproductive to spend a lot of time adjusting a category to ensure it exactly matches the list. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. So old template list is the list of pages to be deleted by this TfD. Can we declare it exact enough by now, or more checks required? -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have re-checked User:Johnuniq/Convert templates and am confident it can be used as the list of pages under consideration in this TfD. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to fellow contributors and closing admins here: User:Johnuniq is the editor who has build and still maintains Module:Convert (since 2013). IOW, he knows what he is talking about. The request to Wait (=relist) should be given weight accordingly. -DePiep (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq, I'm confused. Are you saying that the module uses some of these subtemplates? Because my understanding is that none of them are actually being used in the article space. The standard for any template is to have a /doc, /sandbox, and /testcases subpages, so my nomination excludes only those three pages. I'm proposing every other subpage (as linked to in the nomination) so I'm not following where this "we need to check the list" comes from. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That list is composed as follows: 1. List (written down) all subpages Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Convert/. 2. Speedy delete subpages that are unused etc. (~20). 2. Delete from that list each individual page that has a function in the new, Lua-based {{Convert}}. 3. Concluding list: all pages to be deleted. End of process. The process steps can be seen in the page history. (Complementary, the Lua-related pages (to Keep) are loosely mentioned in the talkpage). You can find that a number of pages are relevant today (for example, Template:Convert/Transwiki guide), that would be deleted by a blanket-deletion (delete all but three pages, blindly by prefix). -DePiep (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't thought about /doc-type subpages that would be useful elsewhere. Thanks for doing that work, and my apologies for not seeing this facet of the discussion until just now. I've amended the nomination accordingly. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care. I just did reverseinvert the description: the Blacklist is normative (to be deleted pages), there is no formal Whitelist (to keep pages). -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ta Primefac (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait then delete as appropriate when ready They are done with and should be deleted as per request but I'm siding with Johnuniq in that this is not something that needs be done hastily. What we should be doing is preparing the list of subtemplates to be deleted (as mentioned above). A blind mass deletion might not be the best move. What we don't need, however, it to have to be coming back here to keep discussing whether this or that swathe of subtemplates need deleting. Make a list of what is to be deleted and what is not then go ahead. Jimp 16:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jimp, by now page User:Johnuniq/Convert templates is the exact list for deletion. Johnuniq has confirmed correctness (in the post right above yours), but more eyes are still welcome. See also its edit history and talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep Thanks. Jimp 23:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the whole discussion and plan to close it, but I just want to double-check. @Jimp and Johnuniq: There's no outstanding reason to wait, correct? The list is final on what you both agree should be deleted? ~ Rob13Talk 10:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BU Rob13: That is correct—the list is final and all listed pages can be deleted. I do not know why, but two of the pages were deleted by Plastikspork (so items 30 and 48 are redlinks) but the rest are ready for deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft comment. If this TfD concludes deletion, we are saying goodbye to that huge, wonderful, parsed-coded {{Convert\old}} [1]. While Lua made its improvements, it was a great example of smart parsed-coding. It taught me a lot of {{{1|}}} usage, both in understanding and in using. Thanks to those who contributed. Wikid77 -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old subtemplates work, Lua version does not. Again, all {convert} subtemplates should be kept ("Keep") because the Lua version still has thousands of calculation errors and should be corrected while the old version is retained for side-by-side comparison. In fact some users imagine that only Lua temperature calculations are incorrect, but many other cases have been found, including the following nonsense ranges where Lua computes 2 different numbers as converting to the same amount:
    • Lua: {convert |91 |-|92 |cm|in} --> 91–92 centimetres (36–36 in) -- AA
    • wiki: {convert/old|91|-|92|cm|in} -->
    • Lua: {convert |91 |cm |in} --> 91 centimetres (36 in) -- BB
    • wiki: {convert/old|91|cm|in} -->
    • Lua: {convert |9001 |-|9003 |cm|in} --> 9,001–9,003 centimetres (3,544–3,544 in) -- CC
    • wiki:{convert/old|9001|-|9003|cm|in} -->
    • Lua: {convert |94 |-|95|ft|m} --> 94–95 feet (29–29 m) -- DD
    • wiki: {convert/old|94|-|95|ft|m} -->
    • Lua: {convert |186 |-|186.1|ft|m} --> 186–186.1 feet (56.7–56.7 m) -- EE
    • wiki: {convert/old|186|-|186.1|ft|m} -->
Because the old {convert} subtemplates still exist, it can be shown that {convert/old} has calculated the correct results for the prior 4 years, while the Lua calculations have been incorrect. Meanwhile, there needs to be a crucial reason to delete these ~3,600 working subtemplates, beyond the fact that the Lua version calculates incorrect results which some users do not care about. Sorry, but wp:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete a working set of 3,600 subtemplates in favor of a Lua module which calculates numerous incorrect results. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Using |sigfig=, as advised by the documentation:
Lua: {convert |91 |-|92 |cm|in|sigfig=3} --> 91–92 centimetres (35.8–36.2 in) -- AA
Lua: {convert |91 |cm |in|sigfig=3} --> 91 centimetres (35.8 in) -- BB (what was the problem anyway?)
Lua: {convert |9001 |-|9003 |cm|in|sigfig=5} --> 9,001–9,003 centimetres (3,543.7–3,544.5 in) -- CC
Lua: {convert |94 |-|95|ft|m|sigfig=3} --> 94–95 feet (28.7–29.0 m) -- DD
Lua: {convert |186 |-|186.1|ft|m|sigfig=4} --> 186–186.1 feet (56.69–56.72 m) -- EE
-DePiep (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost 4 years, so the Lua precisions need to be fixed, not excused as a need for users to insert "sigfig=5" to calculate correct results. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old subtemplates show Lua version wrong on some units but ok on others. The Lua version has a variety of precision calculations, some of which seem correct, buy many not. While there are errors in cm/inches or ft/m, the conversion of ft-to-miles seems correct and better than {convert/old}. See examples below:
  • {convert |5283 |-|5287 |ft|mi} --> 5,283–5,287 feet (1.0006–1.0013 mi)
  • {convert/old|5283|-|5287|ft|mi} --> [same]
  • {convert |5283 |-|5286 |ft|mi} --> 5,283–5,286 feet (1.0006–1.0011 mi)
  • {convert/old|5283|-|5286|ft|mi} -->
    So the Lua feet-to-miles seems ok, but ft-to-metres has errors, along with mm/inches, oz/pounds, troy oz/lb, floz/USqt or cm/inches. Compare:
  • {convert |111 |-|113 |mm|in} --> 111–113 millimetres (4.4–4.4 in)
  • {convert/old|111|-|113|mm|in} -->
  • {convert |113 |-|114 |oz|lb} --> 113–114 ounces (7.1–7.1 lb)
  • {convert/old|113|-|114|oz|lb} -->
  • {convert |27 |or|28 |ozt|lb} --> 27 or 28 troy ounces (1.9 or 1.9 lb)
  • {convert/old|27|or|28|ozt|lb} -->
  • {convert |37 |-|39 |USfloz|USqt} --> 37–39 US fluid ounces (1.2–1.2 US qt)
  • {convert/old|37|-|39|USfloz|USqt} -->
  • {convert |0.113 |-|0.114 |oz|lb} --> 0.113–0.114 ounces (0.0071–0.0071 lb)
  • {convert/old|0.113|-|0.114|oz|lb} -->
  • {convert |27 |to|29 |mm|in} --> 27 to 29 millimetres (1.1 to 1.1 in)
  • {convert/old|27|to|29|mm|in} -->
  • {convert |189 |-|189.1 |cm|in} --> 189–189.1 centimetres (74.4–74.4 in)
  • {convert/old|189|-|189.1|cm|in} -->
  • {convert |188 |-|188.1 |ft|m} --> 188–188.1 feet (57.3–57.3 m)
  • {convert/old|188|-|188.1|ft|m} -->
    The above examples, when using live {convert/old}, show the precision errors had been fixed in 2013, before the Lua version was rushed into use on 11 December 2013, before the Xmas/Chanuka and New Year 2014 holidays. The related 30-day wp:RfC was intended to span past 19 Dec 2013, with 2 weeks longer to fix Lua bugs, but the forced, rapid holiday release revealed numerous other Lua problems which eclipsed the impact of precision errors at the time, and most all of us where overwhelmed by the other issues past December 2013. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: The 4-year delay in fixing precision errors, in the Lua version, indicates a need for much more time to compare results with the live {convert/old} subtemplates, and hence this TfD should be closed "Keep" to allow more months for careful debugging of precisions in the top unit-combinations. Such as why Lua correctly handles astronomical units (93e6 miles) converted from miles, but not for km-to-miles:
  • {convert |93,000,001 |-|93,000,002 |mi|AU} --> 93,000,001–93,000,002 miles (1.00047543–1.00047544 AU)
  • {convert/old|93,000,001|-|94,000,002|mi|AU} --> {{User:Wikid77/Template:Convert|93,000,001|-|93,000,002|mi|AU}}
  • {convert |27 |to|28 |km|mi} --> 27 to 28 kilometres (17 to 17 mi)
  • {convert/old|27|to|28|km|mi} -->
These issues are too complex to rush as a New Year instant task. Close as Keep for now. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikid77, you're talking about differences of 0.01 inches. I'm sorry, but unless you're using Wikipedia's numbers to build an arc reactor and need sub-millimeter precision (which you shouldn't even be doing in the first place) small rounding differences are perfectly acceptable. Or, as DePiep has mentioned, just use the template as it should be and add |sigfig=. You're the only person who wants this kept, and for really miniscule and unnecessary reasons. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re Wikid77: nothing broken in the Lua version, so nothing to fix. As the documentation describes (and the talkpage did dozens of times), the rounding and precision can be done by different mathematical principles, also taking in account the precision present in the input value. There is a default one, and there is also |sigfig=, |round=, |4= (precision), |frac= (fraction), |adj= even. All mathematically sound. Pick and use what you need, as I did in your examples above.
This is your task by now: if you want to claim that Lua-{{Convert}} is broken, you must back up that claim with some proof. So far, all your examples only show misunderstanding of the rounding issue, not engaging in precision math backgrounds, and some misleading reluctance to use the proper parameter setting. You have not proven any error.
Next, there is this. As the talkpage repeatedly shows, {{Convert}} maintenance is aimed at providing useful and broad services in conversion. Unused or extreme requests have been denied because of effort v. effect unbalance. So even if you would find and prove an error in the extreme region, unsolvable by the documented provisions, even then the reply could be: not worth fixing. Let alone there would be the slightest consideration to revert to the old parsed version—which conclusively brings us back on this TfD topic. -DePiep (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not advising to revert from Lua {convert} back to wikitext {convert/old}, but rather to compare results, where the accurate precisions generated by {convert/old} can be compared to proposed changes to the Lua {convert}, and then the fixes applied in Lua can be compared side-by-side to testcases from {convert/old}. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikid77: I am not advising to revert from Lua {convert} back to wikitext {convert/old}, but rather to compare results. This allows for deletion, then. The rest is off-topic for this TfD. Because, for such a comparision {{Convert/old}} is not required; one can make each and every point using the Lua-{{Convert}} alone (plus some reasoning). For this, I started Template talk:Convert#Off-topic, trivial, and misunderstood issues from the TfD. Note: unless new arguments arrive, I will not return to edit this thread. -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. One doesn't have to verify with another template that a calculation is correct; use an actual calculator or an online conversion website. There has been no solid reason to keep a template family that has been unused for over three years. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
since {{User:Wikid77/Template:Convert|91|-|92|cm|in}} works, I don't understand why we need yet another archived version. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: The above hostility to fixing the calculations, in the Lua script version, makes we worry about other problems in the Lua version "being swept under the rug" where deletion of {convert/old} would further bury other problems from detection. The severe wp:BATTLEground mentality shown above, by extreme insistence on deletion, has me worried, about the judgment of deleting the working precisions of {convert/old}, in favor of preserving calculation errors in the Lua version. Hence, the result is Keep because the deletion allows calculation errors to be locked into Lua convert where deleting {convert/old} would hide details about the actual error cases. Meanwhile, we need to check for other problems being conveniently ignored, where further comparisons between {convert} and {convert/old} could reveal even more evidence of problems. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2017 (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).

Template:Once Upon a Time ratings 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Way too cramped, not suitable for fall shows. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No reason why shows with 16-20 or less episodes per season are allowed to use this template, while shows with 22-23 epsisodes are not. Seems like Template:Television ratings graph should be modified slightly (ex. allow custom labels for season names in table to remove Season for each row and reduce width of bars in graph) so that all shows can use it or maybe a new template should be created specifically for shows with 20+ episodes per season. The ratings template is an excellent template and it doesn't make sense that because a particular show has 2-3 more episodes per season they cannot use it given that the problems of it being cramped can be addressed. - Brojam (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, Once_Upon_a_Time_(TV_series)#Ratings already does a perfectly fine job summarizing the ratings. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2016 (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).

Template:Infobox urban feature 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus for deletion, but there is consensus that this is a miscellaneous infobox. As such, it's appropriate to replace it with more relevant infoboxes as necessary. Perhaps a future nomination would benefit from doing that first. ~ Rob13Talk 00:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to, variously, {{Infobox street}}, {{Infobox park}}, {{infobox artwork}} or others. Only 55 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - not exactly the same as any one of the above things Alaney2k (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strawman. Given that it tries to do the job of all of them, of course it's not "exactly the same", and no claim is made that it is. It is, though, redundant to them. Please give examples of pages which use it, where another infobox would not suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The infobox urban feature lets you label what the urban feature is. The others are hard-coded by type. It's for miscellaneous types. None of the three have that feature. The Baldwin Steps is neither a street, park or artwork. The above three are poor substitutes, although of course it is possible to use them. Alaney2k (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Such labels can be provided in the other infoboxes, too. For example, Infobox park has |type=, as does Infobox street. Baldwin Steps could use - and - indeed has previously used, until you removed it - Infobox street, which "may be used for urban and rural thoroughfares, lanes, alleys, public highways and similar features". Your objection at that time was that Infobox street did not have a map; it does now. I asked you for "examples of pages which use [Infobox urban feature], where another infobox would not suffice". Do you have any? One, even? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I said you could use others already. I said they are not as good, Baldwin Steps included. I'll ask you then, which template provides -all= of the components that this one does? Alaney2k (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace any with suitable replacements, then reconsider. if you want a encompassing template that could replace this, try {{geobox}}, but I doubt that would be an agreeable option for other reasons. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. Sincerely. The look is nearly the same, but I do think the category was better in the colored band. That's just a minor point, of course. When I put together Infobox urban feature, I put in a grab-bag of features. I'm wondering if it is possible to put Infobox urban feature on top of Geobox. And of course, whether there is any objection to that, and even if it is possible. I mean, I don't feel like the real reason for wanting Infobox urban feature deleted has been expressed. I mean, yes those other tpls exist, but they are not exactly as useful/complete and not better. And I don't think the inclusion count is that important. I mean, I can see several dozen urban squares it could be used for. If it was built on top of Geobox, I wonder if any objections would be removed. I think geobox, using the free fields, could work, but I would not want to have to set up free fields all the time. I did put in features in articles like Seoul Plaza to show naming, too. Right now, I still want to keep the infobox urban feature tpl. Alaney2k (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alaney2k, the colour used by geobox is toggled by the type, in this case "Steps", which is the same colour used for buildings. if there is a need for a different colour for steps, I am sure it could be added to the list. yes, it would be easy to rewrite this infobox to call geobox internally. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes:Yes. But is there a need to rewrite it for geobox? It is based on Infobox now, what would be the point? What would be the improvement? And anyway, the proposer just wants to do away with it. Alaney2k (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alaney2k, you asked "I'm wondering if it is possible to put Infobox urban feature on top of Geobox". and the answer is yes. the only benefit that I see for doing so would be for the purposes of replacing this template with the more generic geobox template. you asked for a template that could replace all the trancslusions of this one and I found one for you. Frietjes (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to fix severe backlog issues causing older discussion pages not to appear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2016 (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).

Template:Davy Tillman 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template is probably created by the subject. Marvellous Spider-Man 11:04, 22 December 2016 (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).

Template:WMATA station 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).

The result of the discussion was delete per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This template is obsolete and has been replaced by {{Station}}." Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's the matter of its transclusion on 39 pages, but other than that, no objection. Useddenim (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2016 (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).

Template:Commons file 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).

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Commons file with Template:Commons file inline.
These templates offer almost the same functionality. The only major difference is the text output (one gives a full sentence while the other gives barely more than a link. It should be fairly straightforward to merge these and add an |inline= parameter option.

As an additional note, these two templates are used a combination of only about ten times. I would not be opposed to deleting them both, since there isn't much use and based on the current usage I don't see much more use out of them. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No to merging, yes to deletion of {{Commons file}}. The other one is potentially more useful as it may provide images linked directly, through the Media: namespace, with a path to copyright and other info. See WP:PIC#Linking without displaying, paragraphs for images linked directly. I think a search for such use of images in the main namespace is apt. If there is a considerable number of directly-linked images without any attribution, {{Commons file inline}} could be a way to rectify this. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging (under Template:Commons file) and restoring simple syntax before IP edits. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:42, 22 December 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22&oldid=1138533077"