Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:08, 6 May 2009

< May 3	May 5 >

May 4

Template:Beta software

Template:Beta software (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"This article or section contains information about computer software currently in development." Um.. so? Why the ~~hell~~heck should we notify our readers about this? We don't do disclaimers. And we especially don't do disclaimers that stay forever in articles (like in Mozilla Firefox#Future features). Conti|✉ 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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." Cody Cooper Talk 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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? --Conti|✉ 09:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete with {{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. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{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. _wjemather^bigissue 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a template that stays on an article for 10 years is temporal, too. Technically speaking. --Conti|✉ 14:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? _wjemather^bigissue 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Conti|✉ 14:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{future software}}. _wjemather^bigissue 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WJemather, you never, ever work on computing articles. How did you come to the conclusion that this is a "rampant" problem? Warren -talk- 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. _wjemather^bigissue 23:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I'm amazed that people are confused by the distinction. {{beta software}} is the software equivalent of {{current}}, and {{future software}} is the software equivalent of {{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). {{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). I've been saying this for three years now. Anyone proposing using a "future" template to describe something that is a "current event" really needs to give it more thought. Warren -talk- 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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? --Conti|✉ 23:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Maybe not.... Unlike the {{current}}-based templates, {{beta software}} doesn't describe an event. And, unlike the {{future}}-based templates, {{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. Warren -talk- 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{beta software}} should be merged with {{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. _wjemather^bigissue 23:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. The fact that it is a beta belongs in the lead and body of the article. Not on u huge template. Garion96 (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R68/20

Template:R68/20 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 {{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/*:

Template:R39/23

Template:R39/23/24

Template:R39/23/24/25

Template:R39/26/27/28

Template:R48/20/21/22

Template:R48/20/22

Template:R48/21/22

Template:R48/23/24

Template:R48/23/24/25

Template:R68/20/21/22

Most of those old templates were never used, since being created 4 years ago (2005); others have been unlinked, as replaced by the new {{Rlink|rcode}}. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bryan Derksen (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rewrote the thing to use just one #switch. Also, BTW, #ifeq isn't an expensive parser function; are you confusing it with #ifexist? Anomie ⚔ 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current court case

Template:Current court case (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 {{current||court case}} can do exactly the same, anyhow. Conti|✉ 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to {{current}}. In addition, some court cases can stretch on for years, making the definition of a 'current' case somewhat vague. Robofish (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from other capitalisation

Template:R from other capitalisation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and

Category:Redirects from other capitalisations(edit talk links history) per WP:CDP

nominated for deletion: Delete as useless (see discussion copied below). R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Robofish (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've always wondered what the hell this was for. I guess it's probably as useless as I thought it was. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a defence can be made. ({{R from other Capitalization}} is a nice touch though.) Occuli (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or after we've deleted the category, we just delete the template (noting that it no longer has any effect). Does it really matter? — CharlotteWebb 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. — CharlotteWebb 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, worse than useless actually. — CharlotteWebb 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redirect categorization is a waste of time, and as the nom explains, can prevent legitimate page moves by editing the redirect. Mr.Z-man 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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. –xeno ^talk 15:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should {{R from CamelCase}} get the same treatment or does it actually have a purpose? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 "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. — CharlotteWebb 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Category deletion policy? Seriously? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I always wondered what is was for. It seems the answer is nothing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless. Garion96 (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 :*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)
+*'''Delete''' - Per nom. The fact that it is a beta belongs in the lead and body of the article. Not on u huge template. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:R68/20]] ====