Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 1 July 3 >

July 2 edit


Template:J & J Ultralights Aircraft 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:J & J Ultralights Aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigation template without parent article. A "see also" in both articles can fix the problem. (The existing article J & J Ultralights is a disambiguation page for the two ultralights mentioned) The Banner talk 21:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I am not sure why the main article on the company was recently made into a disambiguation page for the aircraft types. Normally within Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft this would be an article about the company itself. Because ample information is available I have now created a company article at J & J Ultralights, fixed the template links and so there is no need to delete this template now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template with just two links is not enough....William 14:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Um, it has four links to articles, not two. - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm, no. The criterium according to WP:NENAN is "relevant links". And then only Seawing and Tukan qualify. The Banner talk 18:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - WP:NENAN is just an essay. There are a total of three "relevant links" including the link to the new parent article on the company J & J Ultralights. You can note that it is standard within aircraft articles under Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft that if a manufacturer has more than one type we have a nav box. There are thousands of these currently. - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only two types of aircraft can be Wikilinked. Lastcent (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The fact that other similar templates exist isn't exactly an argument to keep. If templates like this have been created by rote, then there's more cleanup to do. Templates like {{Ahrens aircraft}} may satisfy some ritual requirement to create a navbox for every aircraft manufacturer regardless of how few aircraft there are or how awkwardly manufacturers have to be delineated; but readers would be better served by a couple of links in the article body. bobrayner (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well it is an argument as at least one group of editors have created and used a series of navboxes to aid the reader and provide a similar navigation method on related pages, the fact you dont like them doesnt mean it is not a valid point to raise. MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have to agree. At WikiProject Aircraft the intention has been to standardize the layout of aircraft type articles as far as practicable to make it easier for readers to find information and navigation too. This does make the experience of reading multiple articles easier and which is why we try to include a nav box when a manufacturer has two or more aircraft types. As in this case that means that there are at least three specific links in the box, including the link to the manufacturer's article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please calm down - whats with the attack on the aircraft project it is not needed, nobody has said any project "rules" all that was stated that one project uses this family of navboxes to standardise and aid navigation between related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2014 (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:Addition 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Addition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All uses of it can be replaced with #expr. Redundant Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment {{addition}} says it uses LUA, while #expr is a parser function. Which is more efficient? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think efficiency would only come into play for excess parameter counts. I can't find any usage of this template that even gets near the limit. moluɐɯ 13:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Lua is more efficient than wikitext at doing slow things, but simple addition is fast enough that the time spent going in and out of Lua more than cancels out any performance gains. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and the module should be deleted as well, in my opinion. There is not any performance gain from luafying templates that simple.--Snaevar (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with deleting the module simply on the grounds that its only use was this template. moluɐɯ 14:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I've asked to have TFD expanded to cover deletion of modules, at WT:TFD -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the module should be deleted as G8 if the template is deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There are times when parser functions are less appropriate than using Lua. This template/module isn't hurting anyone, is useful for calculations where template include size may be an issue, and as a minor side note the module makes a useful example for those trying to learn Lua. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes no sense at all. None of those are reasons to keep it. Any time this template is used, parser functions are more appropriate than Lua, we don't keep things just because they don't hurt anything, this template is worse for template include size than #expr would be, and we have enough real Lua modules that we don't need example ones. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template include size was my original reason for whipping up this model (as well as random practice), but from the looks of it, the most parameters the template sees used is 5 or something. It also feels a little silly to use it on pages such as this, where we have it adding 2 or 3 static numbers. I probably should have checked its usages before jumping on the conversion train, but I didn't. Oh well. This template is used on less than 60 pages, and it won't be hard to remove its usages. It's really most practical for us anyways to either convert it to #expr or calculate 6.6+49.6 ourselves. That's 56.2, just by the way. moluɐɯ 20:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment is there a LUA-Mediawiki code library (such as GitHub or Sourceforge) to deposit this in, if we want to keep learning-by-example material at? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not exactly sure, but it's not really doing anything unique. Module:Gaps is a good simple example of iteration over parameters. Module:Math is a good simple example of wrapper main and _main (and is better documented than anything I've written). I can't find a simple module for the valueFunc stuff, but given how it's our own thing integrated into Module:Arguments, there's very likely a good simple one that exists as an actual module outside of the documentation. moluɐɯ 12:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant —PC-XT+ 00:47, 15 July 2014 (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:Entheogens 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Entheogens (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

POV fork of {{Hallucinogens}}. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point to this template. Created only so that alcohol could be included, as part of a massive expansion of Wikipedia's anti-alcohol coverage by a now-blocked user. --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_2&oldid=1131475461"