Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 26

Infobox Software 2
Stable release:	3.97 (June 4, 2006) [+/-]
Preview release:	3.97 (June 4, 2006) [+/-]

Infobox Software
Latest release:	3.97 / June 4, 2006
Preview release:	3.97 / June 4, 2006

< January 25	January 27 >

January 26 edit

Template:Infobox Software2 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 no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was a fork of Template:Infobox Software, with the intention of having the software versions on a different page so that the main page didn't need to be edited for each new release. While this template accomplishes that goal, it makes the method of editing the release number/date needlessly obscure, and creates a whole host of unnecessary pages (2 per instance). There's no real problem with minor edits to change the version number, anyway. --Mike Peel 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: this template is currently used on ~250 articles, meaning that there are ~500 sub-templates. As such, perhaps depreciation as per wwwwolf's vote below would be a better route, with a migration back to Template:Infobox Software over time, rather than deletion. Mike Peel 16:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I don't understand. Innit pretty cool to not change the whole article just to update the version number? --Ysangkok 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The coolness of it doesn't matter - the issue is that it's obscure and overcomplicated for people who don't know about the system to update the version number. It's also unnecessary: editing the whole article to change the version number is perfectly fine. Mike Peel 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The arguable advantages of the system implemented in this infobox extend significantly beyond just de-cluttering the edit history of the main page. For example, the "unnecessary" templates created can be used by several pages, such that one edit can update the version number and date in multiple articles. Such templates can be seen in several entries in the comparison of instant messaging clients page. As for the obscurity of the editing method, while it does tend to confuse editors, it's only because they have gotten accustomed to a certain way of working. Multi-transclusion is not unusual for templates; you could argue that the system employed by {{Nintendo hardware}} is also "needlessly obscure", with its use of {{CVG Navigation}}, and creation of subpage templates. But it allows for some standardization and flexibility not afforded by more accessible methods. ~~In any case, it can be decided for each article on an individual basis which version is preferable.~~ {{Infobox Software2}} is not perfect, but it has its advantages~~, and I believe it can be improved to address its deficiencies. In addition, deletion may be more trouble than it's worth~~. Without this template, all the numerous "latest preview release" and "latest stable release" templates will become ineffectual, and all uses of these templates will have to be replaced. Dancter 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first difference between this and the navigation templates is that this requires regular updating, which means that it is much more likely to be updated by people that aren't familiar with the system, whereas the navigation box will rarely be updated. The same applies for all of the cases of multiple inclusions that I have seen, and indeed the majority of single-inclusion template usage. Second, in general, I view templates as formatting and navigation tools - not somewhere to put content. Note that Wikipedia:Template namespace states "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article."
Finally, On the example page that you link to, only half a dozen entries use this system; the rest seem to get along fine without it. The same applies to the other cases that I can see. Mike Peel 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention another reason I'm against templates which include content: inline references (i.e. Cite.php) don't work in them, meaning that you're restricted to using inline linking referencing, which normally doesn't fit in with the surrounding article. Mike Peel 08:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered many of those points, though "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace" is the only one that I would consider grounds for outright deletion. Perhaps if you revise your nomination to reflect the scope of the deletions and the related cleanup that would be necessary, I would consider changing my "vote". As it stands, simply deleting {{Infobox Software2}}, even after replacing instances of it with {{Infobox Software}} would cause a host of problems. Dancter 17:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above. Mike Peel 16:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My new recommendation is below. Dancter 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Canar 02:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The template is clearly useful to some people--I won't repeat the arguments by Dancter. It will certainly not replace the original, but please keep it for those of us who want it. - Heptite (T) (C) (@) 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I admit I was surprised by the system used in the template, but it makes enough sense to me to be worth keeping. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate. (Port all pages to use {{Infobox Software}}, and redirect there). MediaWiki isn't a time machine and doesn't handle concurrent histories gracefully. Generates unwarranted clutter in the template space; single-article templates are pointless anyway. Superficial "neatness" of having separate histories for versions is greatly eclipsed by practical concerns like those already listed; the edits to update the version number have to be made anyway to some page, and someone has to watchlist those all. (Have you?) It's just not worth the trouble. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep For obvious reasons this shouldn't be deleted. Somitho 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are these "obvious reasons"? I can't see any. Mike Peel 16:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's useful. --thedemonhog 04:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think having only one Infobox Software template is the right way to go, be it either only {{Infobox Software}} or {{Infobox Software2}} or a hybrid of the two of them. What I don't like is that there are two different formats to show the same information.

For Infobox Software, you have the version number, "latest release version", followed by a slash followed by the date, "latest release date". Then you also have the preview version number, "latest preview version", followed by a slash followed by the date, "latest preview date". Ok simple enough. I don't really understand the importance of having the preview version and date, but they're there.

For Infobox Software 2, you click "edit this page" only to find no explaination of where the versions and dates came from. So you go to the page {{Infobox Software2}} only to find that you are really supposed to go back to the page you came from and click the tiny +/- sign next to the releases. Now you have to edit this template, which itself contains either the {{LSR}} or {{LPR}} templates. Both of these templates require that you have 1.) the article's name (which by the way is already in the name template itself), 2.) "latest release version" and 3.) "latest release date". Now "latest release version" (and "latest release date") can either be the latest stable release or the latest preview release depending on which template is used. But remember the original Infobox Software uses both "latest release version" (along with "latest release date") and "latest preview version" (along with "latest preview date") to separate stable and preview releases. A little confusing perhaps? Not to mention the fact the version number is followed by two spaces and the date in parenthesis instead of the slash with no parenthesis as in the original Infobox Software.

I copied sample templates on the right so you can compare both styles. The formating differences are apparent in comparison pages such as Comparison of integrated development environments. If we don't delete one template, I think should at least try to merge the formating so they look consistent. I apologize if this seems like too much about nothing, but I haven't had a good experience switching between both templates. -Hyad 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It adds overhead, it makes articles more difficult to maintain, and it makes articles more prone to vandalism and abuse, since you have to watchlist three pages instead of one. I created {{Infobox OS version}} a little while ago to deal with individual versions of a line of operating systems (OS X and Windows, mainly), and that template doesn't use this sub-template idea, because we were seeing a constant stream of vandalism and otherwise inappropriate edits on the sub-templates for Windows Vista. It's much easier to catch this stuff if the edit happens on the main article itself. Additionally, there isn't a good solutions for providing citations for the latest version, and more often than not, the article itself will have to be updated to reflect the information anyhow. -/- Warren 20:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate - While I disagree with some of the other criticisms against the system, the policy against using templates as content makes complete sense, and is a deal-breaker for this template. Because of the multiple levels of transclusion, time should probably be allowed to ensure a smooth transition, which should probably be done in stages. After porting pages to use {{Infobox Software}} and converting Template:Infobox Software2 into a redirect, as wwwwolf described, all remaining uses of the "latest preview release" and "latest stable release" templates (such as in comparison of instant messaging clients) should be replaced, after which all 630+ can probably be safely deleted. After that, if for some reason there are some leftover uses of {{LPR}} and {{LSR}}, those two can be probably be orphaned and deleted as well. Dancter 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete, if you don't like a template, edit it rather than making a fork. >Radiant< 10:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks good —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.166.171.16 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - The only reason for breaking out an updatable number into a separate page is if that number will be reused in multiple articles. Since that's not the case here, this is just "syntactic sugar" which needlessly complicates article maintenance for people not skilled in the workings of templates. —Dgies^t c 22:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overcomplication. It also clutters Google search results with pages that are not particularly useful. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:43, 2 February 2007 (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.

Template:Anaheim NHL 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{NHL Team}}, only difference is size of logo px. — MrDolomite | Talk 05:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - over infobox-ification. NHL Team does fine. 64.178.98.65 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obsolete. Xiner (talk, email) 16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obsolete. --Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:23, Saturday, January 27 2007}
Delete Completely obsolete. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 19:41, 27 January 2007 (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.

Template:Anthropocentric 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text is pretty self explanatory as to why it should be deleted. "This article does not express a biocentric view". At least it doesn't say "This article does not advance my bias. Please advance my bias". -Amark moo! 22:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I don't understand. Is the text of a template not supposed to be self-explanatory? O.K., the nomination has been rewritten now to clarify what was meant. —Ruakh_TALK 06:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Amarkov's trying to imply that a biocentric view is not necessarily a good thing in articles. --ais523 13:19, 26 January 2007 (U T C)
Delete Amarkov has a point - it's not that biocentric POV is a bad thing, it's that, well, an encyclopedia written by humans, for humans, might, um, represent a human POV. Besides, notice, it's unused. 64.178.98.65 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should an IP be voting here? Xiner (talk, email) 16:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of course, not a vote. More to the point, the IP is right. Gavia immer (u|t) 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 64.178.98.65 Gavia immer (u|t) 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some sort of POV template. Nuke it. :O .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually think it might be nice for some articles on non-human-specific topics to focus less on the human-relevant aspects of those topics (well, maybe — without a specific example in front of me it's hard to judge), but this template implies that it's Wikipedia policy to avoid anthropocentrism, perhaps as part of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and that's simply not the case. Indeed, so far as I know that's not even been discussed. —Ruakh_TALK 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, you people have no sense of humor! :) Delete as redundant to {{NPOV}}, not because anthropomorphism is unavoidable. But I would like to point out that a biocentric POV is bad too--what about all us non-bio entities? Don't we get equal representation? Androids and robots of the world, unite! :) --Xtifr _tälk 23:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When chimps start editing, they can lobby to get biocentrism added to WP:NPOV —Dgies^t c 22:03, 31 January 2007 (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.

Template:Infobox Dallas 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use redirect of Infobox city.. MJCdetroit 03:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) --MJCdetroit 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the idea behind it was to cut back on coding at the actual Dallas, Texas article.. where it is transcluded. I know that isn't common practice.. but it isn't strictly a "redirect," it's a double transclusion. drumguy8800 C T 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cutting down on coding is not a valid reason for single use templates. If you think it should be, discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace, but as the policy stands, they're not allowed. -Amark moo! 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tons of articles have huge, unwieldy infoboxes. Xiner (talk, email) 16:29, 26 January 2007 (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.

Template:Salt Lake City infobox 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use redirect of Infobox city. --MJCdetroit 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where do these single use templates come from? -Amark moo! 03:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See above. Xiner (talk, email) 16:29, 26 January 2007 (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.



Stable release:	3.97 (June 4, 2006) _[+/-]
Preview release:	3.97 (June 4, 2006) _[+/-]