Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 23

December 23

Template:Nine Muses

Template:Nine Muses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fails WP:NENAN. Just two relevant links. Even the discography won't give links to more albums or songs. (Backlink and "related articles" don't count for relevant links). main article does not give links to any band members. The Banner talk 22:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Indian cuisine

Template:Indian cuisine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cuisine of India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Indian cuisine with Template:Cuisine of India.
per the discussion for Turkish cuisine, I propose merging these templates, keeping the navbox version (same rationale as before). Frietjes (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Pakistani cuisine

Template:Pakistani cuisine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cuisine of Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Pakistani cuisine with Template:Cuisine of Pakistan.
per the discussion for Turkish cuisine, I propose merging these templates, keeping the navbox version (same rationale as before). Frietjes (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Releases cdrtools

Template:Releases cdrtools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Version history is of little general interest, as there will always be only one stable and one development version, so this information should instead be kept on the (by now, obscure) software's homepage. This isn't Windows or Linux, where many versions are in general use and version naming is confusing. 178.7.182.200 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, There are over 100 pages (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Version) which show version histories. Many of them are for ordinary software. Moreover, the version history of cdrtools is valuable information that most readers would find interesting but difficult to find in the official site. So I think there is absolutely no reason to delete the version history of the cdrtools article. Thank you. Ekkt0r (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only information valueable to the reader is the current version, which is found in the infobox already. Can you name an example where a encyclopedia user may need to know about anything else than the current two version numbers from this table? They are straightforward, there are no branches (because there is only a single developer anyway). --188.104.80.39 (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Imagine a novice GNU/Linux user having problems with cdrkit. He/she searches the web, discovers that there is an original software (cdrtools) and that it is not included in his/her operating system. The first thing that user will want to know is whether cdrtools will solve his/her problem. If that user can easily find out that cdrtools is being actively maintained and updated, he/she will probably give it a try. And given that Jörg Schilling is a very skilled developper who does fix the bugs of his software, most users find out that cdrtools solves their problems. Many GNU/Linux distributions patronize their users, deciding for them which software they should use. I think this is sad, but I can understand that they have the right to do so. That being said, I don't like being told what is worth and what is not worth being written in Wikipedia. As long as I follow the guidelines and write sensible information everyone can read on other articles, I should not be threatened with reverts and page deletions. Wikipedia users deserve the right to find valid contributions from the community. This should be true even for articles about software some people don't like. Version histories are given in Wikipedia articles for a lot of software and there are no rules against that. I feel like I'm being sensored in Wikipedia by a few users and this is very upsetting. So please consider not deleting this template. Thank you. Ekkt0r (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Subst and delete single instance template pretending to be a table. There's no conceivable reason why this should be hard to edit, it's material that should be part of the article's coding, not a template. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You might have noticed that I did add a link to the template in the section of the main article when I inserted the template. I have also added, this evening, a tip in the section of the main article to help those who would not notice the link.

Regarding the use of a template for the version history, there are many other articles using similar release templates, and most of them are only used once.

So I do not think I broke any rules. And I am always very careful when I edit any page. So please consider not deleting this template. Thank you. Ekkt0r (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If you examine the archives of deletion discussions here at TfD, you'll note that single use templates are frequently deleted, especially when all they do is boilerplate some article element onto the page for no reason other than to have a template hold the data. The template provides no multiarticle information, nor is the article heavily edited so as to need to separate out a template to prevent edit conflicts. And several of the other software articles have their version tables directly placed into the article, not as a separate template. If there are any other articles with templated version tables, they all need to be substituted and deleted. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but to my knowledge there are no rules against templated version tables. I chose to use a templated version history because I think this is worth and because I think cdrtools will last forever (and will continue to be actively maintained and updated). That said, if there is a rule or an objective reason for merging the version history in the article, I promise I'll do so.Ekkt0r (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the "General G. O. Squier class" templates under deletion lower down this page. Those are just boilerplates, as your template is, and those are used on more than one page, but are still up for subst-and-delete because they do not function as templates, as yours also do not function as a template.

On a further note, the way you link to your template is not the standard way Wikipedia links to templates. Having the header link to the template is non-intuitive. The edit link leaves many users unable to edit the content, because they won't see the coding, and won't read your note.

-- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Mediocre American Man Trilogy

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

Template:Judd Apatow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Adam McKay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This supposed "trilogy" has not been mentioned by cast and crew since 2007 and Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (or anything else for that matter) has never been confirmed to be the third installment. --BenStein69 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)