Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 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)

"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). Conti|✉ 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Well, a template that stays on an article for 10 years is temporal, too. Technically speaking. --Conti|✉ 14:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * So you think the template should not be used at Mozilla Firefox? 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)
 * 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). 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 23:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. <span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> Warren -talk- 18:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 20:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. The fact that it is a beta belongs in the lead and body of the article. Not on a huge template. Garion96 (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Future software per above. Beta and future software is pretty much the same thing.--Unionhawk Talk 14:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they're not -- one exists, the other doesn't. <span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> Warren -talk- 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the merger. --bender235 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is same as software in development and merge with the current template "software in development" this thing is in beta, alpha, gamma is not that important and most people don't know what a beta is anyway. 97.118.113.19 (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP- This banner is an immportant tole in the wikiproject computing community it is designed to inform users that the content they are reading about is not publicly avalible at the present time, But will be available soon. As fay as merger with Future software i oppose because future software cloud be used for software concepts or software in alpha stages. --Koman90 (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Novatoribbon.jpg


 * 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. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 08:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This fact should be part of an article. --Christopher Kraus (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with future software, with a "beta" parameter, as per <sub style="color:#007700;">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)
 * 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)


 * I am lovin the "beta=yes" parameter in future software idea. Awesome idea, wjemather!--Unionhawk Talk 19:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a concept for that version here. It has been tested here.--Unionhawk Talk 19:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think I'm going to disagree with the nom and side with Warren here.  This is no more a disclaimer than current or future is.  If anything, my !vote would be to delete future software.  Why?  We don't allow articles about future films before they have begun principal photography, since these projects can be derailed for any number of reasons before they even see the light of day.  Software is the same way -- it can be derailed for any number of reasons before the public ever gets wind of it.  If we are truly using future software to describe software that hasn't been seen by the public yet, whereas beta software is being used for software that has been seen by the public, then I think beta software has a better justification for being kept around than future software.  Matt (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference to Template:Current and Template:Future is that those templates actually have guidelines and are not used on every single article that can be considered a current or future event, respectively. If they were, they should be deleted, too. --Conti|✉ 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even so, these templates still fall into the WP:NDA's definition of "temporal templates". Matt (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't even consider this mainly a disclaimer, but information provided to the readers to value the information properly. Is the NPOV template a disclaimer / fine print that the information is maybe not fully trustworthy? Well, maybe one can look it at it like that, but it's also very important information to judge the provided information. Like this one. &mdash; Northgrove 08:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per User:Warren; beta and future are not the same thing. Tothwolf (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 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)





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 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 rcode. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)

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   can do exactly the same, anyhow. Conti|✉ 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete - Another example of a template duplicating the functionality of current. Delete as redundant. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)0


 * 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)