Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 2 April 4 >

April 3 edit

Template:Commonsmaydelete edit

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Substed, but I don't recall having used this recently, own creation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ir-Roadsign edit

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. G7: One author who has requested deletion. WOSlinker (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ir-Roadsign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused - Own creation - 1 use substed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:DoD detainees ARB edit

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DoD detainees ARB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template doesn't seem to work? It renders in a broken way e.g. in Qari Ahmadullah in reference 3 (at time of writing) Tom B (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could kindly add to the discussion on my behalf:
Keep helps guard against link-rot, see this update for example. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
 YWbm1058 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Works fine for me. Appears that Gadget850 fixed the issue. Another brilliant template implementation from Rich. When the DoD changes the link to their information, we only need update the template that transcludes the reference, not each of the several individual articles that use it. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it needs to be converted to a full citation template and the articles updated. Right now the use is all over the place. If the main link changes, then there is a high probability that the undocumented sublink will change as well. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:02, 5 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Municipal Torquay Borough map 2013 edit

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Municipal Torquay Borough map 2013 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Looks like the creator was making a template to avoid repeating lengthy text in two ref-tag notes in another article, but there is no need for this, the ref-tag can simply be referred to by name after the first instance. McGeddon (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MobileTimeStamp edit

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pointless busy work created in response to this reply that this now-blocked user received when nominating a similar template. If there were a genuine need for this then it would have been created by an editor who was actually using it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm now using it on my BlackBerry Curve as well as Template:Mosig. It is so much easier than hitting sym wait for symbols popup to load ... t – sym wait for symbols popup to load ... t – sym wait for symbols popup to load ... t – sym wait for symbols popup to load ... t – sym wait for symbols popup to load ... t If you chose to delete it anyways, that is fine. I just wanted to make sure I clarified it is used. Note:(If you delete it you may see a handful of redlinked {{subst:mots}} until I realize it is deleted). I actually do put "just a timestamp" on some things (like in parameters of templates, such as the ones that fall under {{Multiple issues}}). Thank you for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Unstable edit

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete. Requested by author. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template of own creation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Marriage edit

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

After an anonymous IP member brought the issue to my attention I looked into it and was curious why this template even exists. Spouse equals marriage so isn't it just redundant and not applied to all articles so what purpose does it have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.147.15 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This template was brought to TFD earlier this year and I don't think anything has changed since then. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TT&TO is correct that nothing has changed; the unnecessary bloat in the template has not been removed, and the requests on its talk page for an explanation of what its many parameters are for remain unanswered, despite pointers to them on its proponents' talk pages. This template apparently does nothing that plain text cannot do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Andy, the template has too many issues and doesn't seem like a valid template anyways when plain text would suffice. Lady Lotus (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a crack at fixing this template up a bit, since no one did so after the previous discussion. I didn't use all the location micoformats since they don't appear to be used with the template, but did use date microformats (with {{start date}} and {{end date}}). Code is in the sandbox and uses are on the testcases. Two changes are that dates with more information than just the year are preserved as tooltips and there is a dated statement category added when no end date is given.
As for the TfD, I don't mind uniform marriage date range formatting by template if editors want it, in which case I think the template has utility. The major complaints seem to be how overly complex it is and that it doesn't produce anything normal wiki-markup can't do. Both of those I think can be fixed, someone just needs to do it. It has a lot of uses, so I don't think it's unwanted at all.
Also, I have no idea what the nominator's rationale means. — Bility (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your efforts to improve the template; which I take as good-faith. However, {{start date}} and {{end date}}) do not emit microformats; they are to be used within templates that emit a microformat, to signify the start and end dates of the subject of that template. Using them as in the sandbox is highly inappropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the heads up, I took them out. I'm not familiar with microformats outside of the basic idea, is there a way or a reason to add them to marriage date spans? Is it more than just wrapping the dates with spans and including a certain class? — Bility (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacing each transclusion with a plain text equivalent. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix to handle issues mentioned on talk page (including missing causes of termination), after which it could be used more extensively. Being broken is not a reason for removal, and I'm certain someone would end up re-creating it in the future were it to be deleted. I'm all for defining and standardizing data that is easily defined like this for standard appearance, future conversion to database repository, machine interpretation of pages, etc.
    The language used in the nomination clearly indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of the template, and is, prima-facie, an invalid rationale for deletion. The nominator (an IP) has a total of 29 article space edits in a month, all of which were to remove this template from various articles. They've been warned twice for it (taking to ANI). (edited) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, can you explain how causes of termination fits into the template? It seems like too much information to be output for use in an infobox. Was that part of the event microformat? Because I'm not 100% sure on how that will be implemented by the template. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please can you answer the questions posed on the template's talk page (I won't repeat them here, to avoid unnecessary duplication). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the template was not tagged with {{TfD}}. I've done so, and also posted notice of this discussion to Template talk:Infobox person, where the template is probably most widely used (for |spouse= values). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given by AlanM1 and also on the basis of This, that and the other's comment. I do not believe that any urgent need to delete this template has been demonstrated. SuperMarioMan 19:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given by AlanM1 and the work done by Bility.--Auric talk 19:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Andy Mabbett's observation that this template does nothing that plain text can't do — and more efficiently. Template bloat... Carrite (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given by AlanM1. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 03:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IF it is cleaned up within six months. I would be happy to work on this template upon request. Technical 13 (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The use of templates for standarisation of format is well-established procedure (see {{Birth date}}). This frankly smells somewhat of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The most basic purpose of templates in general is to permit text to be formatted the same way across multiple pages; right now that's not the primary purpose of this template, but it should be. Yes, it's bloated — let's cut it down to the basics. Yes, it has microformatting problems — let's remove the garbled microformatting components, and we can put them back later (fixed) if we want. Basically, it has the capability of being useful without a ton of work, so let's make it useful instead of getting rid of it purely because it's not very useful right now. WP:PRESERVE isn't normally applicable to templates (and it shouldn't be, since they're not content), but the spirit behind it is relevant here: let's not throw away something useful just because it doesn't appear useful right now. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no harm to the use of this template, and it allows for better standardization, which is always good. Ducknish (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_3&oldid=1136430375"