Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 22

February 22

2013–14 Egyptian Premier League tables

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Thanks for the note Hhkohh. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Template:2013–14 Egyptian Premier League championship play-off table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2013–14 Egyptian Premier League Group B table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2013–14 Egyptian Premier League Group A table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one pages. Just call directly from that page. No reason for a template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This template is only used in one article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• subst then delete per above Hhkohh (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I've created those templates to be used on two articles beside 2013–14 Egyptian Premier League; those two articles were 2013–14 Al Ahly SC season and 2013–14 Zamalek SC season. I've just noticed that I forgot to use those templates on the articles I mentioned, and I've just added them while I was writing this. I think there is no need for deletion now. Ben5218 (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• keep no longer used in one page. Zackmann08 please consider withdrawing this TfD Hhkohh (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2019 (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).

Template:Asbox/sandbox/no-table

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:Asbox/sandbox/no-table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, can't figure out how to eliminate the error(s), no prejudice against recreation if the template is needed in the future DannyS712 (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This template has never been used. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep if I understand rightly, as it looks to be a sandbox. If it's not a sandbox itself, we should be able to delete it under G2 as a test that's not in an appropriate testing environment. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - I made it back in 2012, presumably to approach improving the markup of {{asbox}}, but haven't been involved with that since then.  — Scott • talk 12:47, 26 February 2019 (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).

Template:Marshall Islands-sport-stub

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:Marshall Islands-sport-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded template; only used for 1 page (Marshall Islands National Olympic Committee) which already has {{Olympic-org-stub}}. DannyS712 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Replace and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. It's now used on four pages, but that's still far below the minimum, and it also appears not to have been proposed through the normal means. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2019 (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).

Module:FileData

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Module:FileData (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unusable per its own documentation. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral as author. Necessary functions for the module to work were removed, but I don't know why deleting it would serve a purpose. Wnt (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Because your code does nothing. --Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - dead module per doc and author. --Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete; aside from sandboxes, we shouldn't keep template components that don't do anything. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2019 (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).

Template:Infobox U.S. state

• Template:Infobox U.S. state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. At the very least this should be converted to a wrapper template. Yes this was previously nominated 10 years ago, but lots has changed since then. Additionally, it is not likely that there will be any new US states so shouldn't need to be maintained on new pages. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete after replacement as redundant; but if there is no consensus for that, at least make it a wrapper, per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Puerto Rico could very possibly become a state. I oppose for the replacement as there are unique parameters such as "admission to union". Wrapper would be better than deleting to allow consistency without having to patrol 50 articles. IWI (chat) 23:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Would seem that other places, like Canadian provinces (Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, etc.) could use such a parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support merge - the infoboxes should use the same code and have the same visual presentation to other settlement articles. The unique field mentioned above can be used by other countries which have joined a union. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Can you sandbox several examples for various U.S. states? I'm not 100% that fields like "Capital," "Largest city," "Largest metro area," "U.S. Senators," "Before Statehood," "State song," and as mentioned "Admission to Union" have direct replacements in Template:Infobox settlement. We'd certainly need to use a number of custom fields, or add code to the template, which given the high number of pages that use Infobox settlement, should probably get a wider discussion. Federalism, the sort in the U.S. and Switzerland, is not that popular a system globally and U.S. states in many ways have more in common with countires (and fields in Template:Infobox country) than cities.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am curious about the wrapper suggestion. I do see that Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada is done as a wrapper, and provides several of the fields I'd noted Infobox Settlement doesn't include above. Again, showing it done in a sandbox might help convince other editors.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 20:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep States are not settlements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • {{Infobox settlement}}, per its own doc page, is an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country .... US states clearly are subdivision[s] below the level of a country. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I would argue then that this falls under usefulness. Notability cant apply here, and arguments seem to be centered around essays. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Just as we still have Template:Infobox French region and Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada, etc, which oddly aren't being proposed for merger. I'm not quite sure what "wrapper" means, but if it means updating the coding to match Infobox settlement, that seems fine. I'm assuming all the infoboxes at Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement are wrappers, so there should be no problem doing that for "Template:Infobox U.S. state". - BilCat (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Such arguments can be discounted, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NODEADLINE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Those basis are countered by WP:PRECEDENT and WP:YESDEADLINE though. We should be trying to tie this with policy and guidelines when possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Knowledgekid87, have you read the essays you linked to? YESDEADLINE does not say what you think it does and is not an opposite argument to NODEADLINE, even if the name appears to be. Also, if you want to invoke PRECEDENT, then just look at the recent few months of TfD discussions where wrappers and stand-alone settlement templates are being converted or merged back into {{Infobox settlement}}. Both "counters" are in fact, not. To the actual argument made by Bilcat, experience has shown that when nominating many templates of the same type in a group, the result is usually a no-consensus as the discussion fragments into too many pieces and as a result, the tendency is either to deal with one template one at a time, or with very small groups. Slowly all of the templates that should be merged, will get nominated. Opposing because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not contribute to any discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
        • "Should be merged" is a matter of opinion, if the template serves its purpose then why fix what isn't broken? My point is that essays contradict other essays which are not always based on community consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Please when quoting me, use the full sentence so it will not be taken out of context. I said, Slowly all of the templates that should be merged, will get nominated, I specifically said nominated, which was in response to Bilcat, who said Just as we still have Template:Infobox French region and Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada, etc, which oddly aren't being proposed for merger. As I said, slowly the big list is being nominated, whether those pass or not is a different story, but opposing as two templates haven't been nominated yet is just missing the whole point. --Gonnym (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with the earlier statements that U.S. states are not settlements. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Did you not see the response to that claim: {{Infobox settlement}}, per its own doc page, is an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country ...? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I would argue that consensus can change, as the template documentation was placed there by editors. If we were going by Merriam-Webster the term for settlement is as follows [1]:
      • a : occupation by settlers
      • b : a place or region newly settled
      • c : a small village
    • I don't see how a state fits this criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
      • You are, of course, at liberty to argue that consensus can change; however, you offer zero evidence that it has changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge. No reason this shouldn't at least be a wrapper, if not replaced entirely. Only users who truly fail to understand the purpose of Infobox settlement would think "a state isn't a settlement" is a valid argument against this. --Bsherr (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality

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. We will actually delete after replacement. So I will place it in WP:TFDH during replacement (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox Finnish municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Convert to use {{Infobox settlement}}. After looking into the code of this template, it appears that the only reason for a custom template is so that the data can be stored in templates. For example Template:Infobox Finnish municipality/land area stores the land area for every single Finnish municipality. This is NOT the convention for storing this data. Values should be stored directly on the page, not in some convoluted series of templates. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Subst and delete per nom. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete after replacement; but if there is no consensus for that, at least make it a wrapper, per nom. The data should be stored on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• The template was created in 2009 (when there was no Wikidata) to make it possible to update population, area and demographics etc. information automatically at once instead of manually updating each and every page. I agree that nowadays this information should be fetched from Wikidata. However, I still think that the information should not be stored directly on the page. ̣––Apalsola ^{t • c} 15:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep until replacement Besides information like area, it has also demographics data that has been updated annually and doing this individually makes no sense. Unifying these templates is a good long-term goal, but it shouldn't be done until someone can actually produce the replacement without loss of function. --Pudeo (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pudeo: you are missing the entire point of this discussion. The discussion is whether the template should be replaced or not. Under no circumstances is a template replaced if it results in a loss of function. So your argument is pretty pointless. We are discussing whether or not to replace with {{Infobox settlement}} and your comment is basically "don't do it until it can be replaced with something that works"...--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• SPEEDY CLOSE: is a wrapper since creation 2009-01-01 more than 10 years ago [2] 15:04, 1 January 2009‎ Apalsola (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,961 bytes) +2,961‎ . . (←Created page with '{{Infobox Settlement |official_name = {{{official_name|}}} |native_name = {{{native_name|}}} |nickname = {{{nickname|}}} |motto ...') But it is proposed for substitution at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Infobox settlement wrappers. 77.183.12.176 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 77.183.12.176 that is not a criteria for Speedy Closure and putting it in all caps doesn't help. Just because you nominated it again doesn't help. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:24, 28 February 2019 (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).

Metadata population AT templates

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) Hhkohh (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:Metadata population AT-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 0 article transclusions
• Template:Metadata population AT-1/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata population AT-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 1 article transclusion
• Template:Metadata population AT-3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 2 article transclusions
• Template:Metadata population AT-4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 1 article transclusion
• Template:Metadata population AT-5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 0 article transclusions
• Template:Metadata population AT-6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 21 article transclusions
• Template:Metadata population AT-7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 0 article transclusions
• Template:Metadata population AT-8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 0 article transclusions
• Template:Metadata population AT-9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 0 article transclusions
• Template:Get Austria population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subst & delete. This is not a valid way to store data. The population should either be directly placed on the page or stored in WikiData. Not maintained in this sort of template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Zackmann08: Shouldn't Template:Get Austria population be included here as well? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pppery: added --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - at least until there is a good, and equally well maintained alternative in Wikidata. The current population data templates are referenced, up to date (2016) and I can't remember ever having found an error in the data. Markussep ^Talk 18:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Template:Metadata_population_AT-9 has already been deleted per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_15#Template:Metadata_population_AT-9 as has Template:Infobox_Town_AT per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_17#Template:Infobox_Town_AT. With that, these templates are almost entirely unused. So there really isn't any point to keep them at this point. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant, per Zackmann08's update. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 28 February 2019 (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).

Template:Metadata Population BE

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 2019 March 2. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:Metadata_Population_BE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-BB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-BW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-BY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-HB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-HE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-MV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-NI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-NW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-RP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-SH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-SL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-SN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-ST (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_DE-TH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_Dominican_province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Metadata_Population_Turkish_province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Population_Germany (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:If affirmed

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 2019 March 1. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:If_affirmed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:If_declined (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Yesno (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes by wealth normalization

• Template:Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes by wealth normalization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Violates project consensus that inflation will not be used. Discussions have taken place here and here. Inflation values should not be given for storms considering they can't be calculated for areas outside of the US. Not to mention differences in calculations (pop. density, building codes, etc.) that would make such calculations impossible. Both discussions also raise valid points as to why inflation adjustment should not be used. Noah^Talk 01:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The point of this template is wealth normalization, not inflation adjustment. You can very well calculate those for non-US regions, in fact Wikipedia has dozens of lists with countries' GDP (i.e., its current flow of wealth) denominated in US Dollar, even though that isn't the currency those numbers originated in. Those numbers come from agencies like the IMF, the CIA, the Worldbank, and others, who have an army of economists figuring those numbers out. I don't know where this alleged consensus of not using inflation- and/or wealth-adjustment was established, but it's one moronic decision if there ever was one. The only thing this template needs is an update to Weinke et al. (2018). --bender235 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. This template contains useful encyclopedic information, which is an attempt to rank hurriacens by most costly to the society at the time. It's used in several articles so serves its purpose as a template. It shouldn't be deleted just because of a content dispute, ie. an argument about which way of comparing costs is best. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Tom (LT):Might I inform you that wealth normalization has been removed from EVERY TC article except some (not even all) of the ones on that list. The project quit using wealth normalization a few years ago because it is misleading. Noah^Talk 11:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• If there is a project consensus not to use it, I'm not sure why the 5 transclusions can't be deleted/replaced manually. Nigej (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Nigej. Would support deletion if these weren't actually used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Where was this consensus established, and what was the main concern with using wealth normalized damage figures? Sure these numbers aren't perfect, but comparing hurricanes by nominal GDP damage is utter nonsense. If we want to delete those "most costly hurricanes" rankings, we should start with the ones that use nominal damage. --bender235 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Im going to ask about the specific consensus later since I am out of town, but your post (second to last) here shows exactly why wealth normalization is not even close to accurate. All it is is a PREDICTION about what that storm would cause TODAY, not what it ACTUALLY did. To have a list of these in an article is simply misleading. This either needs a serious explanation to clear up that this isn't inflation adjustment or simply removed to alleviate confusion. Noah^Talk 02:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: LOL, of course these numbers are estimates, but so are unadjusted damage figures. How do you imagine these are established? You think someone from the NOAA roams around Texas and Louisiana after a hurricane and collects receipts from repairs?

I'm still waiting to see where this supposed consensus to not include adjusted damage figures was established. Until then, these templates stay put. --bender235 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

PS: I've updated this template to 2018 using Weinke et al. (2018). Also, I've tried to trace back this supposed "consensus" not to use wealth normalization or any kind of adjustment of nominal damage figures. What I found was the unilateral removal of the wealth normalization table from List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes. I will re-add the (updated) information immediately. --bender235 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no specific consensus. If you aren't even going to read what I actually said, there is no point in me arguing. You saw the word prediction and jumped to a conclusion despite the fact that I said wealth normalization is a "prediction about what that storm would cause today, not what it actually did". Nowhere in that did I mention opposing it because it was an estimate. I said it is inaccurate because it stems too far from what the storm actually did in its day. Since nobody seems to care anymore, this discussion is over and the template may stay for now. Noah^Talk 02:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you understand, at least in principle, that comparing nominal damage figures from a storm in 1918 with a storm in 2018 is pointless? For the same reason oil price comparisons can only be reasonably done after adjusting for inflation. But then again, a barrel of oil in 1918 is not different from a barrel of oil in 2018, whereas a typical single-family home in 1918 was much cheaper, and contained much less valuable goods, than a typical single-family home in 2018. That's the logic behind wealth normalization, and while it's not a perfect method, it is far better than comparing nominal figures. --bender235 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do. In this case, regular inflation adjustment would be much better as it simply takes what the storm did and adjusts it today's money value rather than predicting the amount said storm would cause today. As I said earlier, please explain what wealth normalization is in the article as it might baffle or confuse readers who have not experienced it before. A simple note on the column header would work. Noah^Talk 03:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think both questions (1 "how costly was this 1915 storm in today's money?" and 2 "how costly would it be given today's population and wealth density?") are interesting. The answer to the second question is particular useful when comparing whether storms have become more costly over the past century. --bender235 (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed

• Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ununsed template, no reason to keep it around. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge into Template:Trillium Line route diagram. Useddenim (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep. The template is not unused, it is linked to from the less detailed template. I think this is an appropriate setup and the template should not be deleted or merged. BLAIXX 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Blaixx: where are you seeing that the template is used? this clearly shows that it isn't... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That shows it is not transcluded, but it is linked to from Trillium Line: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kusma: that fact that it is linked is not relevant. The template is not used on any pages. If you want to use the content, then it should be transcluded on a page. Templates are meant for reuse, not to be linked to as stand alone pages. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that it is not transcluded is not relevant, seeing that the template is being employed in a useful fashion, supplementing an article. —Kusma (t·c) 18:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep per Blaixx. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep per Blaixx. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kusma and Mackensen: your !votes to keep neglect to actually address the point that the template is not used. LINKING to a template is not a valid use of a template. Templates are meant to be transcluded, not linked to as standalone pages. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the template is arguably main space content masquerading as a template. It's fulfilling a useful function in that respect, how would you suggest handling this differently without degrading the user experience? Mackensen (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Zackmann08: I disagree with your unproven assertion that this is "not a valid use". It may not be documented anywhere, but having diagrams in template space instead of article space has been a traditional and widely accepted practice for a long time. The information is not in article space because it is not an article, and we no longer have article subpages. It is not in file space because it is editable. It is in template space because it is similar to Template:Trillium Line route diagram. Some templates are useful as standalone pages, and there is nothing wrong with that. Deleting this template deletes useful information for no benefit. —Kusma (t·c) 18:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Zackmann08: Forget about WP:DONTGETIT. The template has valid content and is not “Unused”. It's perfectly acceptable for route diagrams to link to a more-detailed sub-diagrams, just as there's no prohibition against stand-alone templates: see Template:East Coast Main Line diagram, for example (or are you now going to nominate that for deletion, too?). Useddenim (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete or actually use - Templates should not be used as links which replace articles. If that template is useful, then use it on the page. If if it isn't useful and you need to hide it, then it should be deleted. Linking it as if it were an article should not be acceptable. --Gonnym (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: And where is the directive that says that? Useddenim (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

2018 Singapore NFL Div tables

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:2018 Singapore NFL Div 1 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2018 Singapore NFL Div 2 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Substitute, then delete. Each has a single transclusion. Bsherr (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• subst then delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Subst and delete per nom. Confusing connections between {{2018 Singapore NFL Div 1 table}}, {{2018 Singapore National Football League Div 1 table}} (redirects from {{2018 NFL Div 1 table}}. Nigej (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  It was a cut-and-paste move that Hhkohh diligently identified and has now been repaired. --Bsherr (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Subst and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Subst and delete as above. GiantSnowman 15:49, 25 February 2019 (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).

Template:Infobox playwright

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:Infobox playwright. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox playwright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 222 transclusions
• Template:Infobox writer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 29147 transclusions

Propose merging Template:Infobox playwright into Template:Infobox writer.

Playwrights are, by definition, writers; many write things other than plays. We seem to have more articiles on playwrights that already use {{Infobox writer}} than use {{Infobox playwright}}.

The writer template has parameters that are not in the playwright template; but these are mostly of generic biographical type (for example, |honorific_suffix=; |parents=; |years_active=) and apply equally to playwrights.

The few parameters unique to the playwright box are either widely deprecated (|influenced=; |influences=) or can be included in the writer template - there being just five of the latter:

• |collaborator=
• |debut_works= [sic]
• |magnum_opus=
• |memorials=
• |ploys= (labelled "Dramatic devices")

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep don't see how this proposal makes editing experience easier, it's clear the template is still in use, has unique parameters to better describe playwrights, and no convincing rationale for merging. I don't find the fact that some playwrights use writer a convincing reason for merging. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The proposal is not intended to make the editing experience any easier. It will also not make the editing experience more difficult. It will, however, make the process of mainitaining templates better, as described at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation, so there's a net benefit, with no cost to regular editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge, seems like a duplication. Renata (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• meta comment a link to this discussion appeared at the top of the article I was reading, drawing attention to itself by disrupting the display of the infobox. The discussion has no effect on the page, as a page merge might, so why is it being advertised in i-dont-know-how-many articles in main space? cygnis insignis 10:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I quite agree with the previous comment, that I really don't understand why a link to this discussion appears on all pages that use the infobox writer. --Dick Bos (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • meta response To editors Cygnis insignis and Dick Bos: : The purpose is to get more editors to discuss this proposal, since without such a notice traffic to template-related discussions is at a level far below that to article-related discussions, while at the same time keeping the notice's visual footprint minimized so as to not overwhelm the rest of the page. I think it's a balanced approach. —Geekdiva (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge - I don't see the need for unique templates for sub-types of writers - comic, novel, play, television, film. Even more so, when these writers can and do write for several different mediums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs)
• Merge. If this weren't being used for any playwrights, I can imagine opposing on the grounds that people writing articles about playwrights have found it more useful, but since it's already being heavily used, any not-useful-for-playwrights argument is obviously invalid. Note that some playwrights don't have either infobox, e.g. William Shakespeare uses only {{Infobox person}}. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge Not unique enough or used enough to warrant a separate template. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge – Points made by PigsOTW are pertinent in all respects. – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge - I have seen some people working on several media. Giving a individual template to a occupation is not reflecting the fact. -Mariogoods (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Playwrights are not writers by definition. Completely different specializations, taught at different universities. Most writers are unable to professionally write plays/screenplays without at least additional guidance/education and vice versa. The fact that SOME people are known for successfully combining both skills doesn't tell anything. Merging them means merging two different professions. And in most cases the infobox is defined by the person's contribution to this or that field. Anton Chekhov is clearly a writer, while Martin McDonagh is clearly a playwright. AveTory (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Merging these two templates would not imply that writers and playwrights are the same thing. There are plenty of general-purpose templates on Wikipedia that serve multiple use-cases. BLAIXX 22:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That "most writers are unable to professionally write plays" does not mean that playwrights are not writers. McDonagh is in the catgory "20th-century British writers". Our category "Dramatists and playwrights" is itslef in the categories "Writers by format" and "Writing occupations". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    • McDonagh is credited with a number of books published. But most reliable sources name him "a playwright" first and foremost. That's his main occupation. And the playwright page explicitly states that "the term is not a variant spelling of the common misspelling "playwrite": the word wright is an archaic English term for a craftsman or builder (as in a wheelwright or cartwright). Hence the prefix and the suffix combine to indicate someone who has "wrought" words, themes, and other elements into a dramatic form - someone who crafts plays. The homophone with "write" is entirely coincidental". I can see how it could be listed as a subcategory of "Writers by...", as it does involve writing, and a number of famous writers contributed to playwright as well. But I still disagree with this categorization, it is based on pure fact that playwright involves writing down some thoughts. But so does computer programming, for example. Or scientific theory. Yet their purpose is completely different. And so does playwright, only it's not that obvious. AveTory (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge. I don't see any issues. Some of those extra parameters in Infobox Playwright seem very susceptible to WP:OR, and perhaps should be dropped, but that can be another discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge. It's seem to be both same and some of the parametres are not defiened in play, if its merged then less maintenance will be required for templates, and precious time can be saved in maintaining other important templates. --Rocky 734 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Merge - Historically, a great many playwrights have also been poets, novelists, short story writers, essayists and journalists. Nowadays, many people who write for the stage also write for the screen. I don't see how having a separate infobox for playwrights is helpful. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2019 (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).

West Chester Railroad S-line templates

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:West Chester Railroad color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:West Chester Railroad lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:West Chester Railroad stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/West Chester Railroad left/West Chester Railroad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/West Chester Railroad right/West Chester Railroad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WCRR style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated and replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/West Chester Railroad. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2019 (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).

Template:Copa Truck champions

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) Hhkohh (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:Copa Truck champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only one navigable link. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Main article: Copa Truck is missing and the template only has 2 pairs of links (2 being red links). Articles first, then template. Nigej (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete The main article was never created. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mariogoods (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2019 (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).

Template:Cyanide & Happiness

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) Hhkohh (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:Cyanide & Happiness (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN : only 3 links. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Only 3 links, 1 a web series based on it, 1 a battle royale based on it, 1 is one of the creators. The battle royale doesn't seem to link from the main article but a "see also" section would be more suitable than a template. Nigej (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Links can be contained in parent article; if needed, template can be recreated --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Why was this given a template? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I checked the template and found that the template does not format properly. --Mariogoods (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2019 (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).

Template:Water supply and sanitation in Europe

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) Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:Water supply and sanitation in Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is obsolete. Usages has been replaced with {{Water supply and sanitation by country}}. This template could also be generated using {{Europe topic}}. Rehman 11:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Includes Gibraltar but otherwise seems to duplicate {{Water supply and sanitation by country}}. Nigej (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Use has been replaced --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Because of your reasonable reason. --Mariogoods (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. I have added Gibralter to {{Water supply and sanitation by country}}. --Bsherr (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2019 (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).