Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 14 June 16 >

June 15, 2006[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, TFD withdrawn by nominator, new mediazilla:6356 workaround now offered by this template. -- Omniplex 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CURRENTSECOND[edit]

Template:CURRENTSECOND (edit discuss links history) is not helpful, see Template:CURRENTMINUTE and mostly redundant with CURRENTTIMESTAMP mod 100. It could be fixed to add a leading zero, but as it's unused deleting it is more straight forward. -- Omniplex 22:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kill with fire. There's a reason it's not a magic word. --Rory096 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Better to have one working template than to use {{#expr: {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 100}} and variations everywhere... especially since that code sporadically produces incorrect results in the form of a negative value. As to it 'not being a magic word for a reason'... as of now it is a magic word, 'CURRENTTIMESTAMP'. Yes, there is a bunch of other stuff in there, but the only unique bit is the seconds and there are at least three methods of extracting them. If we don't want seconds used they should be pulled out of the timestamp not blocked on a per case basis. --CBD 21:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The most expensive part with templates is AFAIK to get its page, parsing it incl. evaluation of inline functions and variables like #expr: or CURRENTTIMESTAMP is relatively harmless. That's the whole point of some parser functions, otherwise say {{switch}} would be more subst-friendly than getting this right for #switch:.
    If you get negative results with "mod 100" it's about minutes or more using two CURRENTTIMESTAMPs, see Help:Variable. For seconds you only need one timestamp, no chance to catch a 59 to 00 condition. Are you really talking about seconds? If yes I fail to see how mod 100 in {{CURRENTSECOND}} could be more robust than doing it directly. The critical point is of course, do folks using a current second understand why that won't necessarily belong to a separately determined {{CURRENTMINUTE}} ? -- Omniplex 08:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As you apparently discovered subsequently, there is a separate problem with 'mod' when applied to large values like the results of 'CURRENTTIMESTAMP'. As to the relationship between 'CURRENTSECOND' and 'CURRENTMINUTE'... if a single method of calculating each is implemented and called in all cases (such as by keeping and using this template) then would the relationship not always be consistent? --CBD 11:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I found 6356 after the comment here inspired by your workaround in CURRENTMINUTE. That it only affects large numbers is news for me, maybe add it to the report. At the moment I consider all math templates as dubious at best, if the same input values (no variable) sometimes give wrong results all is lost.
    {{CURRENTSECOND}} is still a special case, it will never make sense even after the MOD bug will be fixed. The only potentially serious application is {{subst:CURRENTSECOND}} to copy its code into another template. Not yet ready for optional / full substitution, no leading zero, this needs work if it's not deleted. -- Omniplex 03:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the leading zero when I fixed it to avoid the 'MOD' problem, but I'm not sure what you mean about the substitution. The short argument for keeping this is: Seconds now exist in Wikimarkup and we have to deal with that whether this template exists or not - having the template serves only to help standardize how they are computed and applied. Which seems to me a good thing. What exactly is the argument for deleting it? --CBD 10:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating the reasons for a third time certainly won't help, and as long as this MOD bug isn't fixed your proposal to use smaller numbers did the trick. I've updated the complete hh:mm:ss zoo plus m:ParserFunctions/MOD10000 (tested only 50 times each manually). -- Omniplex 10:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - can I simply abort the TFD? With this MOD oddity a common workaround is in fact better than trying it directly. It's still unused though. -- Omniplex 11:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen *fD's closed as 'withdrawn by nominator' several times before. As to unused - I've been wanting to add it to the logic behind Wikipedia:Featured content, but have been holding off pending the results of this discussion. I had used the 'smaller number' method on 'CURRENTSECOND' at first, but switched to the simple subtraction method as it seemed easier for others to understand. I still don't 'get' the underlying concern here, but the current version of this (and the hour/minute templates) seems fine. --CBD 12:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I test that - after searching for some minutes until I found the cookbook in WP:DELPRO. -- Omniplex 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:User NFL-Patriots--SomeStranger(t) 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User pats fan[edit]

Template:User pats fan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicate of {{Template:User NFL-Patriots}}. Sports logos are also not allowed in templates under WP:FUP. BoojiBoy 16:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:User NHL-Bruins.--SomeStranger(t) 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User bruins fans[edit]

Template:User bruins fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicate of {{Template:User NHL-Bruins}}. Sports logos are also not allowed in templates under WP:FUP. BoojiBoy 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect Template:User MLB-RedSox.--SomeStranger(t) 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User redsoxfan[edit]

Template:User redsoxfan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicate of {{Template:User MLB-RedSox}}. Sports logos are also not allowed in templates under WP:FUP. BoojiBoy 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was redirected -- after so many weeks have passed, they have large numbers of uses, appear to have nearly identical results, but the latter seems to include all the functionality at this time. --William Allen Simpson 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-nob[edit]

Template:S-nob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant. Template:S-reg should be used instead. JRawle (Talk) 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: they're not entirely compatible, in wording or in colour. Should {{s-reg}} be adjusted to conform to the appearance of {{s-nob}} or were you looking to convert the appearance as well? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree: I created this template to appease some people who were arguing that there should be a third template other than Template:s-reg and Template:s-hon because neither addressed titles of nobility not linked with a peerage system. I never really cared so delete it if others find it redundant.
    –Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 23:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:S-reg has been altered so that it is only one line high, otherwise it looks excessive. I wouldn't mind whether S-reg or S-nob is used, but there should only be one template. When I checked, the former was used on more pages. JRawle (Talk) 11:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 21:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zimbabwean batsmen with a Test batting average above 50[edit]

Template:Zimbabwean batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Navigation template consisting of exactly one name. Delete. Angr (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Pagrashtak 04:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonstmp[edit]

Template:Commonstmp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete -- Categorizes templates into user specific category tree (also nominated for deletion). Badly named. This is not the best way to link to Commons, and (unlike Images) there is really no reason to coordinate with Templates that appear in Commons. Admittedly, the language cross-links technique doesn't work for this, but a simple == See also == is a better technique than this infobox. --William Allen Simpson 09:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 08:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A succinct see also is all that we need. - EurekaLott 17:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of an interwiki system

It's apparently difficult to take some time off from wikipedia! Thank the Lord for email and friends!

Comments: Which we are you refering? The editors of de:wikipedia or fr: or ja:??? Or the commons sister project? This template and auto-tracking is for those of us working there and here so we can keep things organized, and pop back (navigate) back and forth with minimal trouble. Typing a succinct url may be easy for some of you, but a nice well-behaved friendly family of templates managing such linkages and documenting such porting of templates (most all of which get exported to those sister project places) is hardly detrimental here on en.wikipedia. So you need to take on a bigger 'we' pov to judge on this one.
Simpson seems to have taken umbrage when I called him to account for a thoughtless unnecessary edit[1] and disrespecting of my time. I admit and apologized for being intemperate, but he can't defend against the fact that his revert was disrespectful. Nor can he be inconsistant and manipulative, at least not and get away with it, by arguing one way on his talk (re: usages belong in talk pages), and blithely claiming a See Also on the template will suffice. Note the edit causing said friction between us was precisely THAT kind of add—a see also with usage in {{see also}}.
Such a seperate 'see also' does nothing to list the ported templates which was the whole point, and would require a second line with a category. Even together they don't have the impact of the graphical template, or I wouldn't have implimented it so it was consistant with the various commonscat templates (See family list: {{commonscat4}}) which are increasingly going to be part of all category pages, here and in the commons. (As a member of the welcoming committee sheparding newbies up the various learning curves, I feel such consistancy is important. Yet another reason for this method.)
He's now expanded that vendetta to affect your time and blow much of my day apparently because I was taking a wikibreak and didn't address his talk while I was away. The cost to wikiP to do it the way we've set this up is negligible compared to the edit time we've already spent dealing with this political nit-pick of an full court attack on me[2].
He apparently made no attempt to distinguish between something for my convienience (Category:Fabartus user page), and something which was put in place as part of a much a larger context and project (i.e. the first category he nominated is much different than the latter two, as is this template, or the related workings on the commons.
In sum, KEEP as part of the system—If you primarily edit here and not on the commons, I agree the categorization may be of little use to you here (OTOH, see these arguements towards the bottom)... but the foundation's scope is much bigger than just en.wikipedia, and these are the best tools we have right now to cross-correlate needs and self-document. If we need only port say four pieces of succession box to link category spaces on the commons, doesn't it make sense for someone to be able to quickly see that another three elements that they need for another use haven't yet been ported, massaged and adjusted in any way? Well, I don't know for sure either, but I've strong suspicions it will be quite useful at times. My crystal ball never did work out, but by categorizing and tagging ported elements we at least have a place to start, check alterations to similar elements, etcetera... Moreover as a closing, albeit, minor point, as we steal the guts of various navigation templates and adapt them to the category space operations needed to cross-link heirarchial branches on the commons in particular, the tagging of the wikiP template could save some duplication of effort as one of us takes the template here to commons user space for modification and testing since the visible 'This is in progress' tag is present for the second and subseqent editors. And I do have a thing about saving and respecting others time and effort—ask Simpson! // FrankB 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fabartus' convincing argument. --Coredesat 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's an interesting organizational project. The difference between this and a 'See also' link is that the template helps to maintain a multi-project category schema rather than individual links. I've seen considerable duplication and confusion in math and date templates as people port them from one project to another without noticing that equivalents already exist. This template could help to prevent that sort of thing. --CBD 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sensible way to see what needs done where, not to mention which tools are already available if one switches to the sister project for a while. FrankB 04:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These kinds of templates are the standard way to link to similar pages on sister projects whenever such links might be useful. If there is a problem with the automatic categorization, that can be fixed. If there's a problem with the page name, it can be moved. There's no need for deletion. --TantalumTelluride 19:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 04:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User stalker-2[edit]

Template:User stalker-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I've already subst'd the one page it was on (User:Nickshanks/Userboxes) but I believe that might fall under the typical userbox issues. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_15&oldid=1136431836"