Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template differs from {{Season's Greetings}} only through leaving out the solstice clause. I've added a |solstice= parameter to the main template, so we should delete this fork. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:41, 25 December 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(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only one possible member of this navbox. Hence, no use. Link to the draft will be in the article and infobox. From WP:NAV: They should not be too small. 1 link is too small. The-Pope (talk) 16:26, 25 December 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(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No longer any reason for this to be implemented in Lua following IceWelder's simplication edit * Pppery * it has begun... 22:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks to IceWelder for the update. Note the simplification was made possible because of changes to the website, this would have not been possible before. I have no strong feelings about keeping or deleting. --Svgalbertian (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 15:14, 25 December 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(s) or module(s) 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles '29 played for 4 years in the Eerste Divisie (Dutch second tier association football). During this period a current (!) squad template was developed and updated every year. Since 2017, Achilles '29 has dropped to the Hoofdklasse (fifth tier) and the template is no longer updated. The lack of upkeep is the reason this should be deleted. If, for example, a fan worked on this and there were 25 black links and 3 blue ones (lower leagues have fewer notable players), it still wouldn't be a problem. The "current uncurrent" squad template, however, is misleading. gidonb (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 15:13, 25 December 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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table template used a total of 4 times since its creation a decade ago. Izno (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 15:13, 25 December 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(s) or module(s) 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 convert to wrapper. I do realize this is mostly a moot point, given that the template already is a wrapper, but I don't know if the folks commenting here realized that fact. Of the various possible options this one had the most support, but there is no prejudice against renomination later this year if/when the pandemic starts to slow down and this ceases to be a reason for folks to be absent from Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{User health inactive}}; we don't need the additional maintenance burden of templates for individual maladies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a fairly significant difference between a wrapper, a subst-only wrapper, and a deleted template whose elements are merged into a final template. It's not quite clear which was consensus is lining up for this one, hence the relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 15:08, 25 December 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(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Might be worth a chat with the cricket WikiProject regarding the "usual" stats etc. before this template is nominated again. Primefac (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No accompanying article on the topic and its source is Cricinfo, which is a statistical website. Therefore, no way we can decide arbitrarily that minimum of 20 innings and above 50 runs average is a benchmark. No navigational value, if there are no credible references backing them up. Störm (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These benchmarks are inherently flawed. You cannot compare a 19th-century or a 20th-century cricketer's performances with a 21st-century cricketer's performances (although debatable, but it is too easy to score runs today). It would make sense if we compare cricketers of the same era. Störm (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Piranha249 15:07, 25 December 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).