Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< December 21 December 23 >

December 22

Template:Denial of Mass Killings

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 Relisted on 2016 December 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (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
).

Template:SOTD protected

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2016 (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
).

Note: See also previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_2#Template:FS_number. – Fayenatic London 04:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Join

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wracking my brain for the last four hours trying to figure out where this would be useful. I have yet to come up with an answer. The /doc gives examples like {{join|hello|world}} → helloworld, but why type the extra text just to do that? I could maybe see this being used for parameters, but {{{1}}}{{{2}}} is just as easy (if not easier) to type as {{join|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}}} Primefac (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template {join} does far more than "{1}{2}" as it also removes newlines or spaces between parameters: {{join| AA  |  BB}} gives: AABB, which {1}{2} does not, while {join} can remove newlines within text. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we don't need it, just use {{trim}} or {{#if:1|{{{1}}}}}{{#if:1|{{{2}}}}}. Frietjes (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with {{trim}} is the break caused by newlines and trim separates parts by spaces, while {join} connects the parts directly without newlines which would break onto a separate line. Compare, below, in joining digits of pi (π):
    • {trim | 3.1415926535
      89793238} gives: 3.1415926535

89793238

    • {join | 3.1415926535
      | 89793238} gives: 3.141592653589793238.
    So, {join} actually joins the text parts together, as a solid line, while {trim} leaves the text split between lines, unable to join as solid text.
    As for {{#if:1|{{{1}}}}}{{#if:1|{{{2}}}}}, the problem is the inability to handle blank parameters, plus the complexity of a user writing so many curly braces above 3 parameters: {{#if:1|...}}{{#if:1|...}}{{#if:1|...}}. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you need to split the digits of pi onto more than one line, and then recombine them? It's about as bad as the one usage I saw (which I removed) which had {{join|https://|www.example.com}}. Making a template for the sake of a template is not how this works. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    lol, I'm not an idiot. if you want to trim {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} use {{trim|{{{1|}}}}}{{trim|{{{2|}}}}}. template editors clearly haven't needed this since it's not being used by anyone but you. by the way, if you really want to trim whitespace, use {{#invoke:string|replace|...}} which doesn't require that you stick the pipe between the 3.1415926535 and 89793238. try it: 3.141592653589793238 and see. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, seems useless to me. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the examples above. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep & template_talk. A TfD is the wrong forum to ask technical questions about template operations. The appropriate place to start is Template_talk:Join. This TfD entry should never have been created without discussing first at template_talk. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a technical question about the operation. I know exactly how the template works. I simply see zero reason for it to exist. Additionally, there is no requirement to discuss a template pre-TFD on the talk (though with merger discussions this can be useful). Primefac (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful generic tool to allow making the wikicode of articles more readable. At first sight I thought this was redundant to the basic technology of splitting text across lines (lines that are separated by a single newline in wikicode, are displayed as single line). However, there are cases where this doesn't work nicely and the template could help: for example with elements of formatting that break off at a newline (like italics), or with tabulations (these do get displayed as such). I'd suggest creating a redirect at {{concatenate}}. – Uanfala (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked at the examples above, I've looked at the single in-the-wild application of this template, and I've tried to stretch my imagination as far as I could, and I still see no valid application. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a totally unnecessary template. As Frietjes notes, whitespace can be removed with {{#invoke:string|replace|...}}. The only other function was splitting code onto different lines to make it more readable but this can easily be done using <!-- --> as exemplified here. Jimp 17:05, 29 December 2016 (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
).

Template:1866 college soccer records

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 Relisted on 2016 December 29 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (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
).

Template:Annotated image/Mollusc generalized

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, previously tagged by Evolution and evolvability almost a year ago, but never listed. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2016 (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
).

Template:World alphabets

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, appears to have been replaced by other sidebars Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (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
).

Template:World motor vehicle production by country in YYYY

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 merge with the list article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, could be merged with an article? Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2016 (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
).

Template:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in YYYY

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 merge into an article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused, could be merged with an article? Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I created some of the earlier ones of this set). These templates hold valuable and well sourced data. They represent an integrated set, and are chained one to another. All it needs to make them more accessible is to place one in an appropriate article. -- de Facto (talk). 20:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:DeFacto, why not just merge them together into an article, as suggested in the thread above? Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2016 (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
).

Template:What We Live For tracks

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2016 (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
).

Template:WP Physics Participants list

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2016 (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
).

Template:Uw-thumb3 and Template:Uw-thumb2

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 {{Uw-thumb2}}, delete {{Uw-thumb3}}. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that these templates be deleted (see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016 November 22#Template:Uw-thumb4) since really only one warning template should be necessary for a technical notice like this. General disruption tags should be used if a user is really blatantly ignoring this advice. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I wholeheartedly disagree. Fine that Uw-thumb4 was deleted but 2 and 3 are specific explanations for a specific case. What is the harm in having these templates? They've been used many, many times. Does it somehow hurt to have a detailed template explaining the issue? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forgetting the proper infobox syntax is not grounds for blocking someone.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:48, 22 December 2016 (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
).

Template:UNSC Military

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 ~ Rob13Talk 09:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a pointless navigation box, the United Nations Security Council doesnt have a military organisation and the template doesnt appear to have any value as a navigation box. Certainly adds no value to the articles it has been placed in and over the years most countries have had a seat in the UNSC and adding them would make it even more unwieldy and useless. MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination -- these organizations don't have a strong enough connection for there to be a need to navigate between them. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per above. SC membership is not a natural defining property for these armed forces. --
T*U (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2016 (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
).

Convert template subpages

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. The discussion is quite messy due to the repeated bold !votes by a single contributor, but only one person appears to oppose deletion. More importantly, their arguments have been entirely refuted. There are no inaccuracies, just differences in rounding, differences which can be eliminated using an additional parameter. Note that I'm not deleting these all myself tonight. Feel free to tag them as

WP:G6 after checking for transclusions. I'll slowly work at deleting these. ~ Rob13Talk 01:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

There are 3813 subpages of Convert. {{Convert}} has been changed to a Lua module, so I am nominating all subpages (except the /doc, /testcases, and /sandbox) listed in the Blacklist as being unused and unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a proposal to build a Keep_pages_Whitelist. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin/bot: This old-templates list blacklist is exactly the list of template pages to be deleted by this TfD -- if. -DePiep (talk)
DePiep, see my comment below. My nom covers every page except the /doc, /sandbox, and /testcases. Where is this second list coming from? Primefac (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Folding my multiple comments here for clarity. Arguments and links are below. My statement here is: User:Johnuniq/Convert templates is the normative (absolute) Blacklist: pages to be deleted per this TfD -- if. There is no formal Whitelist of pages that must be kept (informal lists were used to check the blacklist). (This edit is meant to clarify. If it feels like manipulation, tell me). -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)—-23:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
lol moving them under {{convert/old}} is cleaning up indeed, but they'd have to be edited. (Basic code builds subpagename composing like Convert/{{{1|}}}{{{3|}}}). -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac. Do I understand this correct: keep "doc/testcases/sandbox" actually means keep those like Template:Convert/doc, Template:Convert/sandbox, and Template:Convert/testcases, that is: "all subpages directly related to the current Lua version of {{Convert}}". (Seems pointless to keep a testcase for the TfDeleted templates). Could someone clarify/confirm this near the nom rationale? -DePiep (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those three subpages should be kept. I can see how my original wording could cause confusion. I have reworded to indicate that only those three were the exceptions. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for non-Lua wikis: There are some MediaWiki wikis which have been running the old, non-Lua version (from {{convert/old}}), as needed to debug that version. Also, the Lua version is being debugged to fix Lua calculation errors, as tested against the wikitext version precision:
       • {convert/old|105|-|106|F|C} gives:
       • {convert |105 |-|106 |F|C}} gives: 105–106 °F (41–41 °C).
    The Lua version for 4 years has shown nonsense range "41-41" for 2 different temperatures (and many other cases). Overall, I suppose "delete Convert/old" is a perennial request, and so an essay should be written as a canned explanation for why keep both Lua and the faster {convert/old}, and also explain why Lua is now slower than the wikitext template version. That essay could also log how many times users request to re-add features from the {convert/old} version. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've overlooked the fact that we perhaps have the bugfixes, under {convert/old}, which other wikis need, and so yes, the {convert/old} should be kept here to provide bugfixes to other wikis, as well as run testcases to fix the Lua calculation errors. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. fr-wiki isn't going to be calling the en- version of a template. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The other-language wikipedias have copied subtemplates from {convert/old} onto their wikis. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The °C-°F issue can be demonstrated manually, or by using settings available in {{Convert}} :-). -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as well past their use-by date. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lua-based {{Convert}} is three years old now, and has proven its purpose. Number of transclusions had doubled in these years. Not once this fallback option was needed. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait More time to consider exactly what pages are proposed for deletion is needed. About 3630 pages are affected and if the result is delete it would not be reasonable to expect the closing admin to guess which pages should be deleted. A list of old templates is here but it needs a little more checking and polishing—all pages that are not part of the nomination need to be removed from that list to simplify the process. I will do some work on that but this is a bad time of year to discuss such a large nomination. There are more exceptions than the doc/testcases/sandbox mentioned above. Jimp should be notified and be given time to respond. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the Wait request. Johnuniq, you say 'remove' from that list to keep the Lua-related pages. (That would leave the formal blacklist then). Don't you think that categorising the Keep pages would be (more) helpful? What does the bot prefer? -DePiep (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there should be a list of all pages that are part of this TfD so participants can review items without wading through category pages. Also, if the TfD is closed as delete, it would be better if there is a list which links only to the affected pages. The old template list should now show items in this TfD, and should not show any other pages. I put some notes on the talk page. I don't know if a category would be helpful for a closing admin but it would be very unproductive to spend a lot of time adjusting a category to ensure it exactly matches the list. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. So old template list is the list of pages to be deleted by this TfD. Can we declare it exact enough by now, or more checks required? -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have re-checked User:Johnuniq/Convert templates and am confident it can be used as the list of pages under consideration in this TfD. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to fellow contributors and closing admins here: User:Johnuniq is the editor who has build and still maintains Module:Convert (since 2013). IOW, he knows what he is talking about. The request to Wait (=relist) should be given weight accordingly. -DePiep (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq, I'm confused. Are you saying that the module uses some of these subtemplates? Because my understanding is that none of them are actually being used in the article space. The standard for any template is to have a /doc, /sandbox, and /testcases subpages, so my nomination excludes only those three pages. I'm proposing every other subpage (as linked to in the nomination) so I'm not following where this "we need to check the list" comes from. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That list is composed as follows: 1. List (written down) all subpages Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Convert/. 2. Speedy delete subpages that are unused etc. (~20). 2. Delete from that list each individual page that has a function in the new, Lua-based {{Convert}}. 3. Concluding list: all pages to be deleted. End of process. The process steps can be seen in the page history. (Complementary, the Lua-related pages (to Keep) are loosely mentioned in the talkpage). You can find that a number of pages are relevant today (for example, Template:Convert/Transwiki guide), that would be deleted by a blanket-deletion (delete all but three pages, blindly by prefix). -DePiep (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't thought about /doc-type subpages that would be useful elsewhere. Thanks for doing that work, and my apologies for not seeing this facet of the discussion until just now. I've amended the nomination accordingly. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care. I just did reverseinvert the description: the Blacklist is normative (to be deleted pages), there is no formal Whitelist (to keep pages). -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ta Primefac (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait then delete as appropriate when ready They are done with and should be deleted as per request but I'm siding with Johnuniq in that this is not something that needs be done hastily. What we should be doing is preparing the list of subtemplates to be deleted (as mentioned above). A blind mass deletion might not be the best move. What we don't need, however, it to have to be coming back here to keep discussing whether this or that swathe of subtemplates need deleting. Make a list of what is to be deleted and what is not then go ahead. Jimp 16:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jimp, by now page User:Johnuniq/Convert templates is the exact list for deletion. Johnuniq has confirmed correctness (in the post right above yours), but more eyes are still welcome. See also its edit history and talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep Thanks. Jimp 23:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the whole discussion and plan to close it, but I just want to double-check. @Jimp and Johnuniq: There's no outstanding reason to wait, correct? The list is final on what you both agree should be deleted? ~ Rob13Talk 10:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BU Rob13: That is correct—the list is final and all listed pages can be deleted. I do not know why, but two of the pages were deleted by Plastikspork (so items 30 and 48 are redlinks) but the rest are ready for deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft comment. If this TfD concludes deletion, we are saying goodbye to that huge, wonderful, parsed-coded {{Convert\old}} [1]. While Lua made its improvements, it was a great example of smart parsed-coding. It taught me a lot of {{{1|}}} usage, both in understanding and in using. Thanks to those who contributed. Wikid77 -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old subtemplates work, Lua version does not. Again, all {convert} subtemplates should be kept ("Keep") because the Lua version still has thousands of calculation errors and should be corrected while the old version is retained for side-by-side comparison. In fact some users imagine that only Lua temperature calculations are incorrect, but many other cases have been found, including the following nonsense ranges where Lua computes 2 different numbers as converting to the same amount:
    • Lua: {convert |91 |-|92 |cm|in} --> 91–92 centimetres (36–36 in) -- AA
    • wiki: {convert/old|91|-|92|cm|in} -->
    • Lua: {convert |91 |cm |in} --> 91 centimetres (36 in) -- BB
    • wiki: {convert/old|91|cm|in} -->
    • Lua: {convert |9001 |-|9003 |cm|in} --> 9,001–9,003 centimetres (3,544–3,544 in) -- CC
    • wiki:{convert/old|9001|-|9003|cm|in} -->
    • Lua: {convert |94 |-|95|ft|m} --> 94–95 feet (29–29 m) -- DD
    • wiki: {convert/old|94|-|95|ft|m} -->
    • Lua: {convert |186 |-|186.1|ft|m} --> 186–186.1 feet (56.7–56.7 m) -- EE
    • wiki: {convert/old|186|-|186.1|ft|m} -->
Because the old {convert} subtemplates still exist, it can be shown that {convert/old} has calculated the correct results for the prior 4 years, while the Lua calculations have been incorrect. Meanwhile, there needs to be a crucial reason to delete these ~3,600 working subtemplates, beyond the fact that the Lua version calculates incorrect results which some users do not care about. Sorry, but
wp:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete a working set of 3,600 subtemplates in favor of a Lua module which calculates numerous incorrect results. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Using |sigfig=, as advised by the documentation:
Lua: {convert |91 |-|92 |cm|in|sigfig=3} --> 91–92 centimetres (35.8–36.2 in) -- AA
Lua: {convert |91 |cm |in|sigfig=3} --> 91 centimetres (35.8 in) -- BB (what was the problem anyway?)
Lua: {convert |9001 |-|9003 |cm|in|sigfig=5} --> 9,001–9,003 centimetres (3,543.7–3,544.5 in) -- CC
Lua: {convert |94 |-|95|ft|m|sigfig=3} --> 94–95 feet (28.7–29.0 m) -- DD
Lua: {convert |186 |-|186.1|ft|m|sigfig=4} --> 186–186.1 feet (56.69–56.72 m) -- EE
-DePiep (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost 4 years, so the Lua precisions need to be fixed, not excused as a need for users to insert "sigfig=5" to calculate correct results. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old subtemplates show Lua version wrong on some units but ok on others. The Lua version has a variety of precision calculations, some of which seem correct, buy many not. While there are errors in cm/inches or ft/m, the conversion of ft-to-miles seems correct and better than {convert/old}. See examples below:
  • {convert |5283 |-|5287 |ft|mi} --> 5,283–5,287 feet (1.0006–1.0013 mi)
  • {convert/old|5283|-|5287|ft|mi} --> [same]
  • {convert |5283 |-|5286 |ft|mi} --> 5,283–5,286 feet (1.0006–1.0011 mi)
  • {convert/old|5283|-|5286|ft|mi} -->
    So the Lua feet-to-miles seems ok, but ft-to-metres has errors, along with mm/inches, oz/pounds, troy oz/lb, floz/USqt or cm/inches. Compare:
  • {convert |111 |-|113 |mm|in} --> 111–113 millimetres (4.4–4.4 in)
  • {convert/old|111|-|113|mm|in} -->
  • {convert |113 |-|114 |oz|lb} --> 113–114 ounces (7.1–7.1 lb)
  • {convert/old|113|-|114|oz|lb} -->
  • {convert |27 |or|28 |ozt|lb} --> 27 or 28 troy ounces (1.9 or 1.9 lb)
  • {convert/old|27|or|28|ozt|lb} -->
  • {convert |37 |-|39 |USfloz|USqt} --> 37–39 US fluid ounces (1.2–1.2 US qt)
  • {convert/old|37|-|39|USfloz|USqt} -->
  • {convert |0.113 |-|0.114 |oz|lb} --> 0.113–0.114 ounces (0.0071–0.0071 lb)
  • {convert/old|0.113|-|0.114|oz|lb} -->
  • {convert |27 |to|29 |mm|in} --> 27 to 29 millimetres (1.1 to 1.1 in)
  • {convert/old|27|to|29|mm|in} -->
  • {convert |189 |-|189.1 |cm|in} --> 189–189.1 centimetres (74.4–74.4 in)
  • {convert/old|189|-|189.1|cm|in} -->
  • {convert |188 |-|188.1 |ft|m} --> 188–188.1 feet (57.3–57.3 m)
  • {convert/old|188|-|188.1|ft|m} -->