Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/count strokes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ed Poor/count strokes

This was incorrectly listed on AFD. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Stifle (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am taking the extraordinary step of nominating one of my own subpages for deletion. Tim Starling doesn't want it used any more, and that (for me) is reason enough.

But it's really because it does arithmetic in a hideously cumbersome way to support date math. It was originally intended to help with time zones and calendars, but the experiment got way out of hand. --Uncle Ed 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Obvious Delete. Since only three authors, not technically a candidate for {{db-author}} but pretty close.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy U1. Lbbzman 22:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ed Poor. I wouldn't object to a speedy under User criterion 1 (owner request for user-subpage deletion). (Don't delete until date-math code is replaced in other articles, per Ed's comments below.) Barno 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (modified 12-April)
  • I wondered, upon first reading this AfD title, if this might be a user subpage supporting his research into the notability of adult film stars. Barno 22:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per request. I checked the page history, though, and there were some notes about it screwing some things up. Also, some pages link to this template. If anyone else is using the template, I'd make sure they have some other option -- or if it's just infeasible, then remove the usage from those pages altogether. --Elkman - ^(talk) 23:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tried the "what links here" tool and saw a long list, but most were Ed's subpages or Talk pages. There are around a dozen including "date math" where there might be an include-template tag that needs to be removed. Barno 23:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this be on WP:MFD? Stifle (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reason I didn't simply blank the page was that so many other templates depend on it. And these templates are involved with timezones and all. We need to consider the implications. Otherwise I'd simply dismantle the whole set of Wikipedia:date math templates.

Tim Starling's new PHP support for evaluating math expressions is expected to replace the "count strokes" thing. I'm hoping for a smooth transition. Please help me make it. --Uncle Ed 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Has User:Netoholic seen this? —Ruud 03:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete if it has been implemented in the code base. We don't really need 70K templates. Kotepho 10:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This is not an article, so it should not be on AfD (the A is for articles, and this is not an article). Userpages go to MfD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any pages linking to this cumbersome, bloated, performance-destroying template, so I guess we can go ahead and delete it now. I have begun using Tim's new #expr: syntax in templates such as {{minus}}. Anything that tried to add 2 numbers with "count strokes" can be updated now, too. Cheers. --Uncle Ed 13:45, 14 April 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.