View source for Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 4

<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{| width = "100%"
|-
! width="50%" align="left"  | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 3|May 3]]
! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 5|May 5]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>
|}</div></noinclude>
===May 4===
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]]

<!-- Add new listings at the top of the list with the following format:

{{ subst:tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. ~~~~ }}

-->

==== [[Template:Beta software]] ====
:{{tfdlinks|Beta software}}
"This article or section contains information about computer software currently in development." Um.. so? Why the <s>hell</s>heck should we notify our readers about this? '''[[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles|We don't do disclaimers.]]''' And we especially don't do disclaimers that stay forever in articles (like in [[Mozilla Firefox#Future features]]). [[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

*"Please dont delete this template it is a well deserved template used on a number of high importance pages such as [[Windows 7]], and the like." <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Cody_Cooper|<b>Cody Cooper</b>]] <font style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;[[User talk:Cody_Cooper|Talk]]&nbsp;</font></span></small> 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
**I don't want to be rude, but I fail to see your point. It is being used, therefore it shouldn't be deleted? Huh? --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 09:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Replace and delete''' with {{tl|future software}}. ''Beta'' does not really mean "currently in development" since some beta software finish development and never get out of beta, and are released as beta. [[Special:Contributions/76.66.202.139|76.66.202.139]] ([[User talk:76.66.202.139|talk]]) 09:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with {{tl|future software}}. Given that there is very little difference between the two, a single template should be sufficient for the purpose of highlighting that an article/section may be subject to rapid changes. Maybe the combined version should have a switch to add a notice that pre-release versions are available? As a temporal template it is a listed exception to [[WP:NDA]], invalidating the nominators argument. <sub><font color="#007700">[[User:Wjemather|wjemather]]</font></sub><sup><font color="#ff8040">[[User talk:Wjemather|bigissue]]</font></sup> 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
**Well, a template that stays on an article for 10 years is temporal, too. Technically speaking. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 14:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
:*Funny. If you don't (or refuse to) understand [[WP:NDA]], I cannot help you. Editors failure to use a template correctly, is no reason for deleting the template. I suppose you would prevent vandalism of articles by deleting them all? <sub><font color="#007700">[[User:Wjemather|wjemather]]</font></sub><sup><font color="#ff8040">[[User talk:Wjemather|bigissue]]</font></sup> 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
::*So you think the template should not be used at [[Mozilla Firefox#Future features]]? Articles like [[Mozilla Firefox]], [[Direct3D]] and [[Trillian (software)]] will practically always have a section about future developments, and therefore will always have a template about future developments. Anyhow, [[WP:NDA]] isn't the only reason for nominating this template. Regardless of whether we do disclaimers or not, I find this one in particular particularly pointless. Software being in development is nothing we need to warn our readers about. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 14:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
:::*No, I don't think a section entitled "Future features" or "Future developments" needs a template, but where the title does not make it clear, then addition of a template is useful, e.g. [[Windows 7]], [[Safari (web browser)#Safari 4]]. The real issue is poor usage, which unfortunately is rampant with these templates. As far as this one goes, I have already stated that I think it is unnecessary and should be merged with {{tl|future software}}. <sub><font color="#007700">[[User:Wjemather|wjemather]]</font></sub><sup><font color="#ff8040">[[User talk:Wjemather|bigissue]]</font></sup> 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
::::*WJemather, you never, ever work on computing articles.  How did you come to the conclusion that this is a "rampant" problem?  <b><span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> [[User:Warren|Warren]]</span> [[User talk:Warren|-talk-]]</b> 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I didn't make it clear that I was referring to temporal templates in general. However, I did check a large number of articles where this particular template is used before posting, and yes poor usage is a problem. <sub><font color="#007700">[[User:Wjemather|wjemather]]</font></sub><sup><font color="#ff8040">[[User talk:Wjemather|bigissue]]</font></sup> 23:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

*'''Strong keep'''.  I'm amazed that people are confused by the distinction.  {{tl|beta software}} is the software equivalent of {{tl|current}}, and {{tl|future software}} is the software equivalent of {{tl|future}}.  This template is a declaration that the contents of the article may change due to events that are currently happening (i.e. the software is being developed and therefore not finalized).  {{tl|future software}} is for software that does not exist in a way that can easily be documented by reliable sources (i.e. it's not available to the general public).  [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template%3ABeta_software&diff=57585983&oldid=57573259 I've been saying this] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Future_software&diff=55488842&oldid=54373535 three years] now.  Anyone proposing using a "future" template to describe something that is a "current event" really needs to give it more thought. <b><span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> [[User:Warren|Warren]]</span> [[User talk:Warren|-talk-]]</b> 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
**I'm not disputing this, but if this is the case, shouldn't the guidelines from [[Template:Current]] (or similar guidelines) be applied to this template, too? --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 23:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
::*Maybe.  Maybe not.... Unlike the {{tl|current}}-based templates, {{tl|beta software}} doesn't describe an event.  And, unlike the {{tl|future}}-based templates, {{tl|beta software}} doesn't describe something that hasn't happened yet.  It's closer to "current" because it describes something that's changing ''now'', even though "now" may be over the course of many months.  Things change in software, and it's good to warn our readers about this, especially considering we don't know when a reader will read any given revision of our article.  <b><span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> [[User:Warren|Warren]]</span> [[User talk:Warren|-talk-]]</b> 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

:*Warren, I am not confused and do understand your position. I simply disagree with it. Beta software does not constantly evolve in a manner consistent with a current event. Being a preview release, it is closely aligned with a future event, and so {{tl|beta software}} should be merged with {{tl|future software}}. The only other alternative is that once released beta software is a concluded event, which would mean that the template should be deleted as unnecessary. <sub><font color="#007700">[[User:Wjemather|wjemather]]</font></sub><sup><font color="#ff8040">[[User talk:Wjemather|bigissue]]</font></sup> 23:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

==== [[Template:R68/20]] ====
:{{tfdlinks|R68/20}}
A set of 29 (of 125) unused chemical-risk templates, now superceded by new [[Template:Rlink]], which links a chemical R-code to the article "[[List of R-phrases]]". Originally, 125 R-templates were created in 2005 (when few templates had parameters), but now the new template {{tl2|Rlink|''rcode''}} can replace all 125 old templates; however, many are still used. This TfD begins the debate. PLAN OF ACTION: delete the unused templates among the 125, starting with 29 named: R39/*, R48/* or R68/*:
{|width=570px
|
:[[Template:R39/23]]
:[[Template:R39/23/24]]
:[[Template:R39/23/24/25]]
:[[Template:R39/23/25]]
:[[Template:R39/24]]
:[[Template:R39/24/25]]
:[[Template:R39/25]]
:[[Template:R39/26]]
:[[Template:R39/26/27]]
:[[Template:R39/26/27/28]]
|
:[[Template:R39/26/28]]
:[[Template:R39/27]]
:[[Template:R39/27/28]]
:[[Template:R39/28]]
:[[Template:R48/20/21]]
:[[Template:R48/20/21/22]]
:[[Template:R48/20/22]]
:[[Template:R48/21/22]]
:[[Template:R48/23/24]]
:[[Template:R48/23/24/25]]
|
:[[Template:R48/23/25]]
:[[Template:R48/24/25]]
:[[Template:R68/20]]
:[[Template:R68/20/21]]
:[[Template:R68/20/21/22]]
:[[Template:R68/20/22]]
:[[Template:R68/21]]
:[[Template:R68/21/22]]
:[[Template:R68/22]]
|}
Most of those old templates were never used, since being created 4 years ago (2005); others have been unlinked, as replaced by the new {{tl2|Rlink|''rcode''}}. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

:The new Rlink template is impressive but I'm not sure it's a good idea to switch over to it. Every time the new Rlink is called it causes the server to process 126 #ifeq statements. There are a ''lot'' of chemistry articles out there, this could potentially be a significant burden. Also, templates with parameters are more complicated for inexperienced users, and parameters are demonstrably unneeded for this since the existing set of templates gets the same results without them. Why is this approach superior to the existing one? I'm asking genuinely, BTW, not just because I did a bunch of grunt work cleaning up and creating those templates years ago. I don't actually know how much work WikiMedia has to do with parser commands like Rlink uses. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan Derksen]] ([[User talk:Bryan Derksen|talk]]) 14:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' to reduce the amount of expensive parserfunctions used. Just four uses of the new rlink template in an article will drive it over the limit. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 15:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I rewrote the thing to use just one [[mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23switch:|#switch]]. Also, BTW, #ifeq isn't an expensive parser function; are you confusing it with #ifexist? [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

==== [[Template:Current court case]] ====
:{{tfdlinks|Current court case}}
Currently unused. I don't dispute the template itself this time (if it's properly used per its guidelines), but it's simply too specific. There are rarely more than one or two current court cases that are also current events, so there's not much of a need for a specific template. Especially if '''<nowiki>{{current||court case}}</nowiki>''' can do exactly the same, anyhow. [[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Unnecessary. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - redundant to {{tl|current}}. In addition, some court cases can stretch on for years, making the definition of a 'current' case somewhat vague. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

==== {{ucfirst:Template:R from other capitalisation}} ====
:{{tfdlinks|R from other capitalisation}} '''and'''<br />
:{{Lcs|Redirects from other capitalisations}} per [[Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Template/Category overlap|WP:CDP]]{{#if:Delete as useless (see discussion copied below). [[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] ([[User talk:R'n'B|call me]] Russ) 14:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)|<br />
nominated for deletion: '''Delete''' as useless (see discussion copied below). [[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] ([[User talk:R'n'B|call me]] Russ) 14:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)|<span style="display: inline;">; '''as well as'''</span>}}
----
(copied from [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 4#Category:Redirects from other capitalisations]].)
----
*'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''Delete'''. This category serves no real purpose. Over the past few years, many editors have asked why it exists and unsurprisingly their questions have gone unanswered. This category requires bots to constantly add redirects. And in doing so, the bots block legitimate page moves. The category provides little to no benefit to re-users of our content, to readers, or to editors. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 06:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Huh... I've known about this category for years and I never really thought about it, but now I do I can't see any possible use. It's obvious when a redirect is from another capitalisation, anyway. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 06:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. I've always wondered what the hell this was for. I guess it's probably as useless as I thought it was. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 09:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as useless.  --[[User:R'n'B|R'n'B]] ([[User talk:R'n'B|call me]] Russ) 10:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' unless a defence can be made. ({{tl|R from other Capitalization}} is a nice touch though.) [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 13:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I created this a couple of years back, but cannot at this point remember my reasoning.  I do have one concern, but just a procedural one.  This is a category populated mostly by template.  In such cases, is it not proper procedure to take the template to [[WP:TFD]] first, and then G8 the category?  Or are you leaving the template behind?  It's not been marked for TFD yet.  I'm puzzled as to why the category might be deleted, but the template left.  - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] ([[User talk:TexasAndroid|talk]]) 13:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
**Or after we've deleted the category, we just delete the template (noting that it no longer has any effect). Does it really matter? — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
: One possibility I just spotted included [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Capitalisation]].  This page has not been updated in almost a year, so it may be moot, but it appears to be a project that used either the category or template to generate it's contents. 
: I'm also going to drop a note on the talk page of the template about this discussion.  Since I cannot add much for or against this deletion, I'm hoping someone from there might remember what the intended purpose of the category/template is. - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] ([[User talk:TexasAndroid|talk]]) 13:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
::The template and category could not generate a to-do list for this project; it consists of titles for which redirects ought to be created, whereas this template marks redirects which have already been created. The only viable correlation is for the template/category to serve as a measurement of progress made by the wiki-project. Even if the accuracy of this weren't vastly undermined by bots indiscriminately "tagging" such redirects, the disadvantages would still outweigh any possible benefit. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', worse than useless actually. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - redirect categorization is a waste of time, and as the nom explains, can prevent legitimate page moves by editing the redirect. <font face="Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</font> 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
----
(moved by R'n'B from CFD to TFD at this point.)
----
*'''Delete''' - too broad a categorization, and per the above concern that the bot-categorized redirects become an administrative headache if someone wants to move the page to the other capitalization. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font> [[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Maintenance templates that have real, practical uses should be kept, even when few people know what they do. But in this case, the possible benefit seems undetectable. The bot edits that add this template prevent easy reversal of page moves. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - should {{tl|R from CamelCase}} get the same treatment or does it actually have a purpose? --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 17:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
**I'm ambivalent about that as those are less likely to obstruct legitimate moves. When properly used that template serves more as a reminder that "this redirect is a lot older than you are", being an artifact of the way articles were titled ''back in the day'' and that deleting the redirect might break a bunch of links in old revisions etc. However the problem in the case at hand applies mostly to pages freshly created at (or moved to) a sub-optimal title. If somebody moves an article and slaps a silly "sorting" tag on the redirect, reverting the page-move will require admin-rights or a lot of paperwork. In short, if somebody moves "JohnSmith" to "John Smith" it will probably be less open to debate than "Least Weasel" vs. "least weasel" or [[Internet capitalization conventions|"History of the Internet" vs. "History of the internet"]], etc. My own theory is that most of this could be avoided if the software at least made it harder to inadvertently create or link to pages which differ only in spacing or capitalization, and that "redirects from other capitalisation" should be automatic provided no real page exists between here and there. More on this later. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
* There's a [[Wikipedia:CDP|Category deletion policy]]? Seriously? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Simplify''', as good idea but too much overhead. It inspired me to write ''[[Template:Wikisearchbox]]'' to foster a search-engine interface for title-lookup on numerous pages. I have used the category extensively to speedy-delete so many "improbable" (hello?) redirects, such as someone thinking people actually type in long article names (not using wikilinks?): "[[18 March 2003 Parliamentary Approval for the invasion of Iraq]]". That category revealed ''many thousands'' of wasted titles on Wikipedia, and provided evidence for the need to lookup any-case titles. Don't get me started on the day (or decade or century) when all software & browsers will allow multi-word, any-case search (call it "hunt"), even to find a phrase on the current page. "[[I have seen the future]]" after the college-dropout billionaires retire: there's this radical technology called "[[text]]" waiting to be discovered. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 04:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' only will be seen by Wiki editors, and what value does it provide. No one has provided a convincing argument about its usefulness for maintenance or such. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] ([[User talk:Carlossuarez46|talk]]) 04:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I always wondered what is was for. It seems the answer is nothing. --[[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] ([[User talk:Apoc2400|talk]]) 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Useless. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)