< May 3 May 5 >

May 4


Template:Beta software

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus. I'm seeing arguments to keep, merge, or delete the template, but I'm not seeing a consensus on which to use. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

"This article or section contains information about computer software currently in development." Um.. so? Why the hellheck 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]

  • 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? wjematherbigissue 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)). wjematherbigissue 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. wjematherbigissue 23:53, 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]
  • Beta represents the stage before gamma release / x.0 release / public release excessive buggy version to haunt users, so the future is the 1.0 release (or similar) / stable release. Films are in development, so it's also a current thing, but there is the ((future film)). 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome to have whatever view you like about the word "beta", but don't get confused by the name of the template -- the text of the template doesn't use the word "beta", nor does it cast any aspersions about the pre-release process. In the context of Wikipedia, all this template means is "available but unfinished". ((future software)) means "unavailable and may never be finished". The absolute reality is that if a piece of software has been released, in ANY form, it is a real thing that really exists and can never be made to not exist. That isn't the "future" anymore. That's what distinguishes it from "future film"; a film can be cancelled and never released. Warren -talk- 18:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we can agree to disagree here, since I don't think we should warn our readers about beta software. We don't warn them about future patches, either, nor do we tell them in a friendly box that some software is not being developed anymore. All these things should be obvious enough from the article itself. --Conti|✉ 12:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now see, this is how I can tell when someone doesn't work on computing articles. They make sweeping statements like "We don't warn them about future patches".... but we do. Every Service Pack of a Microsoft Windows product has had ((future software)) and ((beta software)) applied to it. Same with Mac OS X releases. Same with other software. Do you want diffs? I can produce them. You don't work on these articles, and you haven't looked at the extensive edit histories, so you should at the very least admit that your position is based on, at best, uninformed guesswork. Warren -talk- 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was more thinking about, say, notifying our readers that Winamp is updating from 5.551 to 5.552. We don't do that (we don't, right?). But yes, you're right, I don't work on computing articles. Maybe that's why I don't understand why we need to use templates like this one. "Because we need to inform our readers that things can change in relation to this patch/building/space mission" is the most common answer, but I just don't get it. This is a wiki, things change all the time, and software being in beta isn't anything special at all. And, more importantly, being in beta is something that should be obvious from reading the article, anyhow. An article that states "The service was unveiled in London on Wednesday 7 March 2007 and is currently in open beta-testing phase." does not need a template that says exactly the same thing. And if an article does not state something to that effect, and you think that it should, then edit the darn article accordingly instead of adding a template. :) --Conti|✉ 19:39, 6 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. wjematherbigissue 23:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you're confused by this -- you don't work on computing articles, so the need for a distinction isn't something you give two shits about. Warren -talk- 18:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having worked in IT for over 15 years, I am precisely clear as to the distinction. It is my choice to generally not get involved with computing related articles, and your attitude just serves as a reminder as to why I made that decision. In future, may I suggest you keep your ignorant and insulting comments to yourself. wjematherbigissue 20:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they're not -- one exists, the other doesn't. Warren -talk- 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Adding a "beta=yes" parameter to ((future software)), which generates an appropriate addendum on the banner, would achieve everything this template does. It is unnecessary, they should be merged. wjematherbigissue 08:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fact should be part of an article. --Christopher Kraus (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ((future software)), with a "beta" parameter, as per wjemather. Beta software is future software. Both forms of software are yet to be finalized on released to the general public. However, future software is not necessarily beta software; future software may never enter the beta stage, and remain as alphas. TechOutsider (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Beta software is available but unsupported - distinctions that are very important to readers and users and very different from either future software or released software. Beta software may change in ways that are hugely significant, and thus statements about it in an article need this sort of caveat. Of course levels of support vary - and with much software it is community-based support, but the point is still that users certainly shouldn't rely on ongoing support for beta software, even from fellow users. Editors should be reminded when they remove this template that they should first check that the article applies to the generally-availabile and supported software. Thanks to Warren for helping draw the distinctions. --NealMcB (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2009 (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 section.

Template:R68/20

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. No policy rationale was given for deletion. Most of the templates did not have the ((tfd)) tag.

The disk space for seldom used templates is not a concern. Expanding the links shows that not all templates listed here are unused.

The replacement Template:Rlink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) may be more convenient to maintain in one place, and the processing for such heavily nested templates on frequently referenced pages is only a minor concern.

But the nominated templates are easy to use. There is a well maintained Category:R-phrase templates. The current design is an example of quality work.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R68/20 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R68/20/21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R68/20/21/22 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R68/20/22 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R68/21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R68/21/22 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R68/22 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R48/20/21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R48/20/21/22 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R48/20/22 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R48/21/22 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R48/23/24 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R48/23/24/25 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R48/23/25 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R48/24/25 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/23 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/23/24 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/23/24/25 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/23/25 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/24 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/24/25 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/25 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/26 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/26/27 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/26/27/28 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/26/28 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/27 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/27/28 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:R39/28 (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/*:

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

Template:Current court case

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

The result of the discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]


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

--User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from other capitalisation

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

The result of the discussion was a clear swing towards keep. Happy‑melon 13:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfD for this template: 19 August 2005 Result: Keep
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.)

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]
Arbitrary section break 1[edit]

(moved by R'n'B from CFD to TFD at this point.)

This template and category are not for the benefit of readers, they for the benefit of editors –
"This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation, and can help writing, searching, and international language issues."
"Pages linking to any of these redirects may be updated to link directly to the target page. However, do not replace these redirected links with a piped link unless the page is updated for another reason."
"For more information, see Category:Redirects from other capitalisations."
This text is shown on both the template page and when the redirect has a CSD or prod template applied.
There is already a widespread problem with some editors changing redirects to piped links, ie; WP:R#NOTBROKEN and this template does seem to help prevent that.
Is there a particular reason why we are even discussing removing this template which would then need to be replaced with ((R unprintworthy))? There are currently 263,120 pages in this category and that count seems to be pretty stable. This seems like a lot of load for the job queue and a big task for a bot for very little gain.
Note that there are also 27 other redirects to this template: [1]
--Tothwolf (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 2[edit]

This section begins the new discussion. Killiondude (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

NOTE My prior closure as "delete" has been overturned, and the discussion relisted, per DRV. Erik9 (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So the root question here seems to be: should Category:Unprintworthy redirects, and the templates which populate it, exist? Erik9 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More broadly, should there be any categorization of redirects, by any means? Erik9 (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of not being able to move over a 2 edit page, can be solved in a number of other ways. ((db-move)) serves this purpose, as would the software enhancement I suggested above - allowing a page to be moved over a page with 2 revisions that both start with #redirect [[target]] where target is page being moved.
Since every page that has his template on in should theoretically contain ((R unprintworthy)) (or that category), there really is no valid reason to delete this template. The "problem" bot could easily be re-approved to add ((R unprintworthy)) to all new alternate capitalization page & thus the problem of not being able to move would still exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another possible solution to the page move problem is to move the "offending" bot's functionality into the core software. It is quite easy to determine if a move destination is only to change capitalization, and thus the template could be auto-added to the newly created "#redirect " page, eliminating the need for a second revision. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2009 (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 section.
More