The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was delete all. Mike V • Talk 19:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Template:convert and Draft:Template:calculate[edit]

Draft:Template:convert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Template:calculate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also nominating all subpages. These pages should not be allowed to remain in draftspace indefinitely. If they are in any way useful, move them to the appropriate namespace, otherwise delete them. They were all created by a single IP user and don't seem to have been edited by anyone else, and have been sitting stale in draftspace for quite some time now. The draft namespace is meant for articles. The templates appear to be relevant to WikiProject Astronomy and WikiProject Cosmology, whom I'll notify. 103.6.159.66 (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or sandbox at Template:Foobar/sandbox if there's anything worth keeping. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. {{convert}} is a module, so the discussion of adding new conversions is what that needs to happen on its talk page (never mind that most of the subpages already exist in the existing template). The "calculate" template is just a lot of grinding maths, and I can't think of a time that an astronomy article that listed a redshift should have shown a velocity instead (or vice versa). Regardless, most journal articles and other references give both, minimizing the need to do these potentially-OR calculations. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many sources only provide redshift without light travel distance or comoving distance, light travel distance is what our lay readership would likely expect to have (since that's how general news media reports things) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Primefac's points. Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment {{convert}} does not support degree conversions, which is something the module is missing. The draft-space name does not represent a one-to-one conversion to template-space naming, so "DRAFT:Template:Convert" can be called something else, such as "Template:astronomy convert" -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not support degree conversions, but there have been multiple discussions (two of the most recent) indicating that it probably won't be happening.

Which would necessitate creating a separate template system that does do angle conversions, since {{convert}} does not support converting source data given in decimal degrees to the current listing practice on Wikipedia of DMS and HMS angles. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus exists that a template used to convert things shouldn't convert angles, why should a template made to convert angles be created? Primefac (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that {{convert}} should not be expanded, because it is already highly complex, and adding additional functionality makes it harder to maintain. Thus creating a separate template system is the solution, since convert is overly complex. -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like the consensus is "this conversion isn't needed", not that it's too complex. As mentioned below, creating something that isn't needed is just a short road down to TFD-ville. Primefac (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE Draft space is space used to hold draft templates, as well as draft articles. The AfC Wizard places draft templates into DRAFT-space -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and so the nominator's particular statement regarding the draft space as inappropriate is incorrect. However, the fact that these templates have been unsubmitted and (at first blush) reproductions of existing templates makes this MfD valid, though to be honest G13 might be more appropriate). Primefac (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They would not be reproductions of existing templates if the functions are different, as they are different. Though there is no {{calculate}} -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, calculate doesn't exist, but I'm still not sure they're needed (which, I suppose, is what this MFD is going to determine). Primefac (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed but either this template is in use and should be moved to template space or it's not and is not needed. It seems like people here don't think it's useful so I don't see the point of keeping it here or in moving it to templatespace to have basically the same discussion at TFD. Delete -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 21 April 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.