Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 22

< February 21	February 23 >

February 22

Template:Marriage

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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator per agreement that custom responses in {{{reason}}} are to be deprecated as ambiguous. Also, per the comment of Andy Mabbett, microformatting will be finished. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary and over-complicated template. Created in Feb 2009 as an ill-conceived and abortive attempt to emit microformats for marriages, which they had not done from July 2009 until September 2013, at which time I started to add microformats, but never completed it. As of recent perceived consensus, this template now does exactly nothing that plain text can't do. Care in using a script to swap instances for plain text will be needed; with which I (or I'm sure Andy Mabbett) would be happy to assist. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no good reason for it to be deleted. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2014 (UT--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)C)[reply]
Delete. Having examined all 3792 (as of this timestamp) transclusions, I can confirm that the parameters/functions built into the template are very infrequently used, if at all. The "reason=s" function, for example, (recently deleted) was not used on any page. As shown by the extensive discussions on the talk page, the functions that are built in to the template are considered confusing, unnecessary, ambiguous, etc., which is presumably why they are not used. The template does not do anything useful that cannot be achieved by simply writing in plain text. DrKiernan (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to see spouses/partners with dates listed in the infobox. If we need the template to do that, then I !vote to keep. If we don't need the template to do that, and it's just a hassle like you say, then get rid of it. - ^theWOLFchild 00:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the very same reasons I espoused in the last three deletion attempts for this template. If you find it too complicated, do not use it. Differential calculus is confusing, so I do not use it in my daily life. But, I do not suggest we deprive others of it. The last vote was on 2013 January 21. We really do not need to do this every year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This vote is a misunderstanding. The template itself is not confusing. It is the output it generated that people find ambiguous: i.e., what does "survived 1936" mean? DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs to be sorted asap. The issue is appearing on a lot of articles. Maybe the best approach is to discuss an alternative without disrupting articles? Decky(talk) 01:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good reason for deletion given, if you want to use the template you can, if not you don't have to. Also, this should not have been marked with the "in-line deletion tag", you effectively disrupted many article's infoboxes. STATic message me! 04:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let it wither away Why mark a template for deletion discussion?! Looks very unprofessional as that discussion is of no interest to the majority of readers. I'd be inclined to mark it as deprecated on the marriage template page and put a note in the person infobox template to advise against future use. Marking it for deletion in the way it has been is just plain dictatorial. Harsh but fair 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The above three "keep" votes are straw men. Discuss the template not the process of nomination. The inline-deletion tag is easily formatted away with noinclude tags. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I suggested a solution as well as criticising the notification method. Are you a troll?Harsh but fair 12:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep, as for previous deletion discussions. Brings formatting consistency to biographical infoboxes. Super Mario Man 04:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A template brings consistency in formatting, and makes it easier for automated tools to extract knowledge from Wikipedia for use in machine reasoning/AI/etc. (While such tools are capable of parsing plain text in many cases, using a template makes the task easier; some might not care much about that, but personally I think such tools are a very interesting use of Wikipedia.) SJK (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which tools read this template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! There is no need to delete it at all! Many of us prefer using this. Miss.Indecisive (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DrKiernan, I've just been thinking about this, and what if we just deprecate the predefined {{{reason}}} parameters entirely. Let people put in what they want, it would be the same as them typing out the text (with the added benefit of the dates being consistent with MOS), and there would still be "some" micoformat emission. If you agree to this, then I will simply withdraw this nomination. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The template emits no microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the general principle of not using inline templates to emit prose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 23 February 2014 (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:Infobox Bon monastery

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) 03:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Bon monastery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Newly created infobox with two transclusion, seemingly a derivation of Template:Infobox Tibetan Buddhist monastery. Rather than having a different template for every religion, we should use standardised templates like Template:Infobox religious building. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Largely identical to Template:Infobox Tibetan Buddhist monastery. Super Mario Man 04:25, 23 February 2014 (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:2009–10 FIS Ski Jumping World Cup

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 relisted on 2014 March 3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:41, 3 March 2014 (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.