Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 17

: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)

• {{tfd links|TV_Fool}}

: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)

• {{Tfd links|Crusaders squad 2008 Super 14 champions}}
• {{Tfd links|Highlanders squad 2015 Super Rugby champions}}

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)

• Delete. We shouldn't use navboxes for this purpose. Championship winning squads can be list elsewhere. Ajf773 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• delete, over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2020 (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 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)

• {{Tfd links|2009 Southern Kings British and Irish Lions tour squad}}

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)

• delete, over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2020 (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 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)

• {{Tfd links|Kyle XY}}

An only two-entry Navbox for a former American TV series. WP:NENAN. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Renata (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• delete, over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2020 (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 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)

• {{Tfd links|Strange Days}}

An only two-entry Navbox for a fairly obscure Canadian TV series. WP:NENAN. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Renata (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• delete, over navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2020 (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 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)

• {{Tfd links|Courtesy blanked|module=|type=merge}}
• {{Tfd links|Discussion blanked|module=|type=merge}}

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 {{para|discussion|yes}}. The template can be redirected to {{tlf|Courtesy blanked}} and its current transclusions substituted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 17 February 2020 (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 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)

• {{tfd links|A_or_an/testcases|module=Module}}

: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)

• {{Tfd links|2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/China medical cases}}

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

• I’m really sorry, so much good work, but agree. D/D+r has a number of problems and isn’t in use AFAIK in reliable sources. if the Ed’s wish to draftify I can help them with complying :) —Almaty (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Judging this template as WP:OR seems overly strict, especially in light of it covering an ongoing event.
  It should for example certainly be allowed to state, that a political party won 25% of the seats, when WP:RS report that it won 75 out of 300. This hardly fulfills conditions to be considered research nor is it an argument as stated in WP:SYN.--89.206.114.67 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - A very useful template. Keep until epidemic ends איתן (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

: 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/941490016#Requested_move_18_February_2020 move request]. robertsky (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

: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)

• {{tfd links|No_orbit_for_payload}}

: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)

• {{Tfd links|Philipp Humm}}

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)

• Delete per nom. Templates need at a minimum five different entries, the unwritten "Rule of five". The creator is a new editor, so probably wasn't aware of that, but a good faith attempt and maybe a learning experience in the realm of 'template respect'. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. The template doesn't have enough entries.Mistico Dois (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2020 (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 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)

• {{Tfd links|Campaignbox South Thailand Insurgency|module=|type=merge}}
• {{Tfd links|Southern Thailand Insurgency|module=|type=merge}}

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)

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to the bottom navigation template. Same exact templates, with the bottom one being out of the way of the actual article text. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2020 (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 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) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Main Page alternative (HS) welcome notice}}

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)

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)

: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)

• {{Tfd links|Shostakovich symphonies}}

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

• delete or redirect. Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• If redirected, the duplicate instances will need to be removed from every article on which the nominated template is transcluded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Merging into a vast supertemplate decreases readability and makes navigation harder. I don't think this benefits readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Nobody is proposing "merging into a vast supertemplate"; the content of the nominated template is already and completely contained in {{tl|Dmitri Shostakovich}}. There is no article that uses the nominated template that does not also use {{tl|Dmitri Shostakovich}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Pretty clear delete as a duplicate. Renata (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2020 (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 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)

• {{Tfd links|MsgEmail}} - 11 transclusions
• {{Tfd links|New message}} -16 transclusions

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)

• Keep at present. This is editors trying to make their space more user friendly and welcoming and I don't see a specific harm in keeping these templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep; not harmful. User:Pigsonthewing/Harmful interface templates is quite a bad argument IMO; all it results in is new editors having to press the 'New section' button instead in this straw-grasping scenario. J947 ^(c), at 03:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep The essay is unconvincing and I'm not a fan of deciding what users can have on their talk page or not. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2020 (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 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)

• {{tfd links|Attempting_school_wikibreak}}

: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).