Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 2020 March 9. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2020 (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).

Super 14 champion squads navboxes

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing particularly special about either of these two teams. While winning the Super 14 is a notable achievement, we don't need a navbox to link between the members of these squads, since it is unlikely readers will want to do so. – PeeJay 18:52, 17 February 2020 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a proper squad, they're just the players who happened to be contracted to the Southern Kings at the time when the Lions toured there in 2009. Nothing special about this squad whatsoever. – PeeJay 18:34, 17 February 2020 (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).
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An only two-entry Navbox for a former American TV series. WP:NENAN. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:23, 17 February 2020 (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).
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An only two-entry Navbox for a fairly obscure Canadian TV series. WP:NENAN. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:13, 17 February 2020 (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).
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 to Template:Courtesy blanked. Primefac (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Courtesy blanked with Template:Discussion blanked.
They do fundamentally the same thing, so I suggest the text of Template:Discussion blanked simply be invoked with an optional parameter Template:Courtesy blanked like |discussion=yes. The template can be redirected to {{Courtesy blanked}} and its current transclusions substituted. –MJLTalk 16:00, 17 February 2020 (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).
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 2020 March 17. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2020 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template contravenes WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH and WP:MEDRS Graham Beards (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The template is now redirected to Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/China medical cases since main topic article has moved from '2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak' to '2019–20 coronavirus outbreak' per move request. robertsky (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The template is indeed useful and does not make any logical inferences or anything. If the percentage columns are so bothersome, just delete them and leave the other ones. Amorim Parga (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think there are large problems with SYNTH, since similar compilations exist in other places. I do think some of the columns (e.g. D/(D+R) ?) are problematic with regards to NOR, but that can be dealt with by removing those columns. We don't need to delete the whole template. Dragons flight (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Basic calculations should not qualify as original research. This is very valuable data especially in the midst of the outbreak. I'd also like to be clear that I am a data scientist currently regularly using this table as a primary data source for forecasting/projections and am biased in that I do not wish to have to figure out where else to gather all of this data on my own. Paradoxsociety (review) 23:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Come on guys ! Core of Wikipedia's work is to gathering factoids from various sources. Let fellow wikipedians work in peace. Yug (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have rarely seen a table in Wiki that is so helpful. The D/ (D+R) is a basic calculation that is self-explanatory, and cannot be considered to be original research. It simply records what proportion of the cases that have been resolved ended in death. Theeurocrat (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The calculations merely save time on everyone’s calculators and make no allusions to meaning, stating clearly how they are calculated. Only the subscripts at the bottom could possibly be inferred to be original thought by the definition given by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.37.147 (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no other detailed summary of the outbreak anywhere else on the internet. The tables are cross-check on the numbers in the graphs. Some of the calculations, eg. D/(D+R) vs raw CFR are unexplained but are meaningful to those with a knowledge of epidemiology. Galerita (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2020 (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).
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 2020 February 24. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2020 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template for an artist and one article (others are a redirect, a redlink, and a list which I have put up for deletion as well as very premature / superfluous). Navigation between an author and his one work with an article (or even two or three works) isn't complicated enough to warrant a navbox. Fram (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2020 (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).
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 to Template:Southern Thailand Insurgency. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Campaignbox South Thailand Insurgency with Template:Southern Thailand Insurgency.
Redundant navigational templates. I think the navbox format is more suited for the scope (not a war campaign). Paul_012 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2020 (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).
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 Speedy deleted. Per Special:Diff/941259819. (non-admin closure)MJLTalk 16:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template with no possibility of ever acquiring more uses. Should be substed and deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May as well delete it now. (I hadn't substituted it in the first place since the original alternative main-page layout that I was porting from svwiki makes heavy use of TemplateStyles, which requires Sanitised CSS pages, which I couldn't create except as subpages of templates. It transpires I just had to initially create it under Template:TemplateStyles sandbox/HarJIT/… and move it. So I've substituted it now, and the CSS is now at Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(Swedish HS theme)/styles.css.) --HarJIT (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2020 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All contained in {{Dmitri Shostakovich}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2020 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Few transclusions (some on two pages belonging to the same user), redundant to core interface, and harmful as explained here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2020 (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).
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 2020 February 24. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2020 (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).