Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 14



Template:Praveen Bhagawati

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted per author's request. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Unused; not needed. Jared Preston (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Praveen Bhagawati
 * 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).

Template:Mounds View Public Schools

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. ~ RobTalk 23:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Navbox with only two blue links, thus not serving much of a navigation purpose. Editors have commented about this on the template's talk page without yet creating an official TfD. Logan Talk Contributions 18:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mounds View Public Schools
 * Delete. Useless template in its current form. -- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 02:29, 17 March 2016 (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).

Template:ACTcity

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was keep. ~ RobTalk 23:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC) seems better to not obfuscate the linking per precedent. suggest substituting and deleting just like. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ACTcity
 * NSWcity
 * NTcity
 * QLDcity
 * SAcity
 * TAScity
 * VICcity
 * WAcity


 * The precedent that you cite was about a template that, using the example used in that discussion, converted  to , which is more complicated than simply creating the wikilink. That's not the case here.   results in  . Using the template is a lot less complicated than creating the link manually, and a lot less prone to errors. Also, while you might oppose the use of the templates, you shouldn't be preempting the outcome of this discussion, as you did here and here. To continue to do so would be flying in the face of WP:FAIT, and its associated arbitration ruling. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I only made changes in template space to get a rough measure of the actual uses. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AStreets_of_Hobart&type=revision&diff=710030818&oldid=671555955 this change for example], illustrates the issue well, in my opinion.  we have infrastructure set up for dealing with WP:BRINT, but not when the links are obfuscated. Frietjes (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You also made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Main_North_Line&diff=prev&oldid=710029882 this change] which seemed fairly unusual ... Dave Rave (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unlike, these templates do offer additional functionality, and are much easier to type out. These templates were originally created to be used in junction list tables, where you have multiple destinations, which can need to be preceded with a hard-space, an ndash, and a normal space, so that if/when the line wraps the ndash stays in the correct position. E.g. from Albany Highway:  is a lot easier to type than the wikitext equivilent, and takes care of the preceding punctuation for you. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 23:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For more examples look through Category:WikiProject Australian Roads articles with a junction list using templates, most of those have instances of these templates using their full functionality - Evad37 &#91;talk] 23:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Per comments from Aussie Legend and Evad, I would support keeping the templates rather than changing or deleting. Also the template pages themselves do not have any sign of being up for discusssion or deletion as far as I can tell, unless I am looking in the wrong part. JarrahTree 23:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have used these when making road junction lists or railway diagrams (for the destinations, not the stations), generally only when linking to more than one town in a list, none of which would be expected to include that map. I would cope with not using them if they weren't available, they are a convenience tool for editors, but I don't see how WP:BRINT is relevant except in a few cases where I would agree that using this template was wrong anyway. I see no reason to delete them. --Scott Davis Talk 06:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per my earlier comments and the comments of and . There doesn't seem a good reason to delete these. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per comments above, no real reason advanced for deleting them. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep Template is useful, contrary to deletion nomination. No valid deletion rationale given per WP:TFD. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, Per comments above. They are actually useful. 23:28, 18 March 2016 (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).

Route diagram templates

 * 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).

The result of the discussion was keep (withdrawn). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 13:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC) None of these route diagram templates are used on more than 10 mainspace pages, and can be easily replaced with the newer Routemap which doesn't take as long to load. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * BS10
 * BS11
 * BS11-2
 * BS12
 * BS12-2
 * BS13
 * BS13-2
 * BS14
 * BS14-2
 * BS30
 * BS50

[EDIT] I meant that the diagrams that these are used in can be converted to Routemap first and then deleted since these few are only used on several diagrams. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Templates BS10 and BS11 are required not only to read a map written using the former BS-map, but also in order to translate such a map into a map using the newer routemap. And therefore templates BS12, BS13, BS14 shouldn't be deleted at all but, on the contrary, should be rewritten like the BS1..BS11 templates to facilitate this translation (the safesubst trick) see Template:BS12/sandbox. More remarks to come. Pldx1 (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep until all of the BS templates have been converted to routemaps. Also, the BS templates can be used to help facilitate conversion to routemap, which is not universally used. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, we can still keep these templates and then, after they are converted to routemaps, delete them, but only when conversion is complete. epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Home work. Jc86035 is telling us that templates BSn can be easily replaced with the newer Routemap template. Let us see how Jc86035 proposes to replace template BS13 by Routemap in Template:MBTA Silver Line. Doing the job by hand or proceeding otherwise ? In the later case, a precise description would be welcome. Pldx1 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Convert BS13 and BS11 so that it can be safesubsted (I did this for all the templates up to BS10), substitute all BSn templates while replacing BS-map with Routemap, remove unnecessary slashes. It's really not that difficult. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The race is open. Look at User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Medway watermills diagram/test and search for Yalding Mill. On the left, i.e. on the 'all' map, the next object after Yalding Mill is Wateringbury Stream. On the right, i.e. on the middle+lower map, we have Yalding Mill, a to mouth link, a to source link and then Wateringbury Stream. This behavior is what was expected. Let us now compare with the junction between the upper and the middle parts of the map. Searching for Salman's Farm, we see that some objects, namely Ensfield Mill, Limit of navigation, Ramhurst Mill, Powder Mills, Town Lock and Town Mill, are on the left, but not on the right. This shouldn't occur. But I have no idea of how to proceed, since I know nothing about the Medway river. Therefore, two methods are on balance.
 * Asking to Mjroots, the one who wrote the map using BS-map.
 * Waiting for User:Jc86035, the one who tells us that everything is so easy using routemap.
 * Who will answer first ? Pldx1 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like routemap is definitely faster and reduces template load, which is something I've seen in some articles lately. However, Mjroots has a good point that routemaps are complicated. epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason that they're different is because there's a parser function somewhere in there that hides particular lines in the diagram depending on which of the parts is being shown. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep all - The problem with the newer system is that you need a degree in computer programming to compile diagrams with it. I've tried it and can't get on with it at all. I understand there is a size issue with BS-map which Routemap overcomes and have no issue with Routemap being used in these cases. Otherwise, editors should be free to use their preferred method without it being changed from one to the other unnecessarily. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, I don't even understand why the discussion was so inflammatory at Wikipedia_talk:Route_diagram_template/Archive_8. Once you have written and tested your map, using {tl|BS-map}}, you can name it Template:XXXX/src and let a computer build the corresponding Template:XXXX, written in the routemap language. This is the usual way to proceed when using high-level languages: each piece is written and debugged using an interpreting environment, and when you are pleased with the result, the piece is compiled into a lower level language. Pldx1 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is all well and good until such time that the diagram needs to be amended. Then you're up a creek with no paddle. It is difficult enough with some of the larger diagrams without making it even more complicated. If we deleted the above templates under discussion, even that wouldn't be possible, would it? Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea is not to delete anything, on the contrary. We need to keep all these BSn, BSn-2 etc. We need to keep all the XXXX/src sources. When you use c++ to obtain an executable, the idea is not to delete the compiler, or the sources, or the computer, or the programmer himself. All of them will be needed when something will turn wrong afterwards (see Henry F. Ledgard, Programming Proverbs for Fortran Programmers, Hayden Book Company Rochelle Park, N.J, 1976). In fact, we need the TWO versions of these BSn and BSn-2 programs. The one to be used with BS-map, and the one to be used when substituting (you know, this horrible thing with all these safesubst). Pldx1 (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As someone who does not have a degree in programming (or anything else, for that matter), it's easier for me to use Routemap. With the width of these templates it's quite debateable whether it's actually more difficult to use Routemap syntax compared to the BSn templates (since there's a different separator system for text labels in Routemap it's less cumbersome with extremely wide diagrams). Also consider that the overlay syntax in the wider BSn templates becomes more convoluted and that a template's number has to be changed every time a new column is added. As for the .src pages, it's not particularly difficult to convert the templates back manually so I don't think it's particularly important. Pldx1, can you clarify what you mean by "when something will turn wrong afterwards"? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Jc86035. What could be learned when passing a degree in programming ? One of the key idea is precisely that  "something will ever turn wrong afterwards", and that error recovery is the most important part of any long term project. YOU prefer writing in this or that programming environment. Great. MANY other people prefer using another programming environment. This is a fact, a massive fact. You will have to live with that. And also with the fact that your way of campaigning for routemap is repellent to the point of hampering the transition. The question is not if the final template, the one that is embedded in the articles, should be in routemap or not.  The question is if we should throw away the people who are using BS-map, telling them to update their outdated brain or to go somewhere else. Or if we will simply solve the problem by having a src in one format, developped in its own environment, beside of an exe in another format (compiled from the src). As a side note, your campaign is surprising from a retired person. Pldx1 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2016 (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).