Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 January 31
- 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) 20:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Show image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Seems little point to this template. Can use the image syntax just as easily. WOSlinker (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. Delete as not complicated enough to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. Unused too. Nigej (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't really know enough about these to answer this for myself, but is there any benefit to users of screen readers to use this over image syntax? If so, then unless there's a format that is better again, it should be kept (MOS:ACCESS). Otherwise, toss it. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- 0 benefit. Worse in fact becausr this template does not have a parameter for the alt text (which, while easy enough to add, still does not confer any advantages over wikitext). --Izno (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- delete, orphaned here. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2021 (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(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 merge to Template:Infobox court case. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox UK Supreme Court case (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox court case (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox UK Supreme Court case with Template:Infobox court case.
Redundant wrapper with only one parameter being overriden (|court=). Suggest merge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge as proposed. Edge3 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It guarantees you'll have an appropriate image every time relevant to UK cases and WP:IFITAINTBROKE. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @The C of E: redundancy is a type of broken-ness. It creates confusion, which is a barrier to editing, reading, and other activities. Regardless, doesn't Infobox court case display a different image on the basis of which court is input? --Xurizuri (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, and per the arguments at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Merge. Redundancy creates barriers to use. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Merge as redundant. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:33, 5 February 2021 (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(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) 15:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Top 10 is subjective and 2021 has only just started - only source was crunchbase.com KylieTastic (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I've no idea what "top 10" we're talking about. And even if I did I wouldn't see any point in such a navbox. More suitable for an article where it can be described and referenced etc. Nigej (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete what's this top 10 based on?? And is the plan to have one for every year? If no, then why 2021 specifically? If yes, then articles are going to get cluttered enormously quickly. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2021 (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(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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States/Nebraska/Douglas County medical cases chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Another COVID-19 template that hasn't been updated since last summer and is currently unused. Douglas County isn't even a big population center with only 500k people. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Even it was being updated, state level is surely sufficient. We can't have one of these for every county in the US. Nigej (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unused and no longer practically usable due to its outdatedness. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:55, 31 January 2021 (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).