Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 25 - Wikipedia
- 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]
- Redirect to or wrappify around {{User health inactive}}. It'd be nice to make that template a little more flexible, so that it's possible to spell out the issue or use a custom image if someone wants. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to {{User health inactive}}. The name of the template is a slight pet peeve for me tbh, maybe deleting it would be better? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's lots of wikibreak templates that overlap - stress, personal issues, discouraged, busy, and frustrated all come down to "not in the mood for WP at the moment" - and there's a separate template for mental health, too. What's one more of these, and one which fits its own niche and is relevant to the biggest medical issue in living memory? That said, I really don't mind if it's deleted, it's not become very widely used. If the multiple params functionality could be merged, though, there could be lots of uses in the general health template. Kingsif (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 20 December 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]
- Wrapperfy per Sdkb. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh. It’s already a wrapper of a template. Being away due to covid doesn’t mean you’re away because you have covid (a health issue). Might be because of other disruption caused relating to covid, such as employment, study, whatever. So not directly compatible imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We have plenty of various "away for various reasons" templates; we don't need to keep adding to them. There's nothing this template does that the generic status template where you simply fill everything in by hand can't do. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's reusable for one, and stays consistent, and it's easier then writing your own wrapper. Use the generic one is never a valid argument for deleting a valid wrapper (not saying this is or isn't one) which abstracts away logic and is easier to use, and it surprises me that this argument is so often accepted at TfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's if you happen to know the appropriate wikicode and that a template even exists. In a pinch, are you going to look for a template that may or may not exist, or are you going to look for an exploitable that already does? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually try look for what I think the template would logically be named first. If it begins with COVID then a good chance I'd use it. Redirects are helpful for this purpose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's if you happen to know the appropriate wikicode and that a template even exists. In a pinch, are you going to look for a template that may or may not exist, or are you going to look for an exploitable that already does? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's reusable for one, and stays consistent, and it's easier then writing your own wrapper. Use the generic one is never a valid argument for deleting a valid wrapper (not saying this is or isn't one) which abstracts away logic and is easier to use, and it surprises me that this argument is so often accepted at TfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One "away" template should be enough. If you're away, does it really matter why you're away? Your COVID status is too much (private) information for me. Ponor (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or at least userfy: a perfectly sensible "away" banner. No need to police the machinery under the hood of what people chose to put on their user pages. – Uanfala (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Wrap in line with SDKB's proposal. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:39, 26 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]
- Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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]
- Keep. The reference is on the template page. 50 is "considered by many as a benchmark to distinguish between a good and a great batsman." StAnselm (talk) 16:23, 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]
- Delete. Content should in a Test Records article if it is useful. More of a list, than anything useful for navigation. Nigej (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this template was previously nominated for TfD in 2011. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:46, 24 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).