Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< October 24
October 26 >

October 25

edit

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Argentina medical cases and similar data templates

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 the unused templates; no consensus on those that are currently used. I am willing to temporarily undelete and/or userfy any of those deleted templates upon request. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These COVID data template pages have no transclusions and are all or mostly:

  • out of date,
  • probably in violation of WP:NOTDATABASE, and
  • a lot less useful than they may have been in the past, since COVID is not as interesting to people as it once was.

These templates appear to contain what is normally article content, and they are linked from the "Data" section of {{COVID-19 pandemic}}, which appears to violate our guideline on linking from article space to other namespaces (In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace) when that navbox template is transcluded in article space.

I asked at the COVID WikiProject page about these templates, and at least one editor (Crossroads) suggested deletion rather than moving them into article space. So here's a TFD nomination. Please discuss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. WP:NOTDATABASE, no transclusions. It is well known that we over-created COVID-19 articles, and that after the recent-ness of the event wore off, that we'd have to mass delete things from the COVID-19 topic area. This is a low hanging fruit example that should be non-controversial since there's no transclusions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COVID killed more americans in 2023 than flu had killed in a hundred years. if the #1 deadliest respiratory disease season in a hundred years counts as being "over-created", what could possibly count as properly created? there's literally no higher rank than #1. i'm obviously going to maintain this resource either way, just tell me how much higher than #1 we have to get until its inclusion isn't controversial. doesn't it seem fair for you to type it out now, so when we get there you can't argue any more? Kinerd518 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that we are all volunteers, but how does your claim that you will "maintain this resource" square with the state of {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United States daily deaths}}, which hasn't been edited in over a year and contains data only from 1 Jan 2023 through 12 May 2023? [Edited to add: I see that the untranscluded {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United States daily deaths post emergency}} picks up where the former untranscluded template leaves off; if you want to advocate for conversion of one or more of those to articles, please do so.] No blame for you at all, but one way or another, it appears that this template is no longer used. The same appears to be true of most or all of the templates above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    referenced below, but for completeness' sake: i can't speak to most of the templates above, just the very specific one that is still included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States which is to say, the deadliest pandemic in the history of the most important and newsworthy country in the entire world. if there are a lot of other articles besides those very specific ones i cited that don't matter, i mean, who cares? go crazy, go wild, delete all of them if it makes you happy, and i mean that sincerely, just don't throw out the globally relevant baby with the Marin County Medical Cases Chart bathwater. how is this even a conversation? Kinerd518 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the most important and newsworthy country in the entire world. Not sure most editors on wikipedia would agree with such a pro imperialism take. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason these charts ended up here in the first place is because they were thought to have no transclusions. But I do see that one there, in a bar graph form; it is the same one in the code. I wonder why that ended up here, then. Crossroads -talk- 05:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there is some confusion about similar template names. I am looking at transclusions for Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States daily deaths post emergency, which is different from {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United States deaths chart post emergency}}. The latter is transcluded; the former is not. At the time of nomination, all of the above templates had zero transclusions. If any of them are transcluded when this TFD is closed, I recommend either keeping them until a later discussion or, as appropriate, copying them into articles, since they are article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The transclusion of the former was in the latter, in a spoiler tag describing the source of its data. I state this for the record, not because I believe for a second it's actually relevant to your decision on the matter. I have recreated the template in Commons Data space and updated the link, because I refuse to let the ongoing deaths of our most vulnerable and desperate neighbors be erased, and I refuse to participate any longer in what has clearly been a bad faith pretense at discussion from the start. You will be in my prayers, and may God have mercy on us all. Kinerd518 (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have been updating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/United_States_daily_deaths_post_emergency every day for over a year. editor @Crossroads declares that the sources are no longer updating case counts; i can't speak to that either way, because this source is explicitly about deaths and not cases. @Crossroads is too bored to distinguish between cases and deaths, and nevertheless wants to declare their almost certainty that the counts are outdated
why? Kinerd518 (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to personalize things with statements like Crossroads is too bored to distinguish between cases and deaths. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kinerd518: That template is being updated, but it is not transcluded anywhere. If it is article content, it should live in article space. If it is WikiProject content, it should live in Project space. Unused templates do not belong in Template space. What should be done with templates that are still seen as relevant? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in fact, the template is very visibly transcluded in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States
please let me know if you have any other questions Kinerd518 (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
excuse me, but @Crossroads brought up how they were bored by the updating of information on the deadliest pandemic in US history. if it wasn't personalized when they said it, it cannot be personalized when i said it
and, more importantly, you didn't address how they declared how this information was "outdated", when i provided absolute proof how it was updated daily. don't you wonder why you decided to argue about the first point, even though i was absolutely right about that, and ignored the second point, when i was absolutely right about that too?
and don't you don't you wonder benefits from your choice of argument? Kinerd518 (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. I didn't see them call it boring, but I see the quote now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being a bit flippant. The premise in the talk page on the Covid Wikiproject was that none of these were transcluded, which a spot check seemed to confirm. Since that is apparently not true of all of them, I suppose those could be exempted and I will amend my comment below, but I do maintain that this is excessive detail and isn't really an accurate picture of what the virus is doing at this point. Crossroads -talk- 05:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted it to say "most" since the premise of this is based on them not being transcluded, but at least one above apparently was. In any case, I maintain that ones with no transclusions should be deleted. I also don't think we should be keeping track of these numbers at this level of ostensibly fine-grained detail at all per above, but since that's out of the original intended scope of the nomination, it makes more sense to let that be (I'm not supporting keeping it either though). Crossroads -talk- 05:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads: Indeed, recent figures are not nearly as interesting as historical figures. The design of Module:Medical cases chart unfortunately biases the presentation quite heavily toward the last two weeks, which is going to be increasingly inappropriate for any COVID-19 chart, but this doesn’t detract from the educational value of seeing the initial surge or the subsequent waves. If these charts were instead static, rarely updated SVGs, I don’t think anyone would even be invoking WP:NOTDATABASE.
So I think this points to a way forward: move the data in these templates into the Data: namespace on Commons, which is a database, then see about a migration away from Module:Medical cases chart to a line graph template that would once again be suitable for inclusion in an article. The second part isn’t urgent, as long as the data is in Commons for safekeeping.
 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 14:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If these fail WP:NOTDATABASE, then these should be deleted. If they don't then these are article content and should either be added directly into articles or converted to articles. In any case, these should not exist as templates to store content. To Kinerd518 or other maintainers, if you want to continue to add data, then Wikidata would probably be the correct place for this. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Wikidata doesn’t handle time series data very well, not at the scale of thousands of statements. Tabular data on Commons is the way to go, especially since the upcoming charting functionality will depend on it. Minh Nguyễn 💬 14:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. So if commons accepts such data, that is the place this should be handled. Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Single-use short sub-templates for Spruance-class destroyer infoboxes

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 23:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the ABL/VLS armament templates, these templates are all just 1 or 2-line, unparameterized replacement text for parameters in the {{Spruance class destroyer infobox ship characteristics}} ship infobox sub-template. They weren't conditionally included; they were all directly included by the infobox subtemplate. I simply subst:'d them into the infobox subtemplate.

The {{Spruance class destroyer armament ABL}} and {{Spruance class destroyer armament VLS}} subtemplates are both the same list of 6 items, with different 7th items (ABL launcher, or VLS launcher). VLS was the default template, so I renamed it to {{Spruance class destroyer armament}}, and parameterized it to include either ABL or VLS, rather than switch otherwise identical parallel template lists.

After deletion, there will be 4 templates left:

The EW and sensors subtemplates are lists of items, and they are conditionally included/replaced by the main infobox subtemplate. IMO it would hinder readability of the Spruance infobox subtemplate to get rid of them.

 — sbb (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as requester – For clarification of the VLS sub-template, Template:Spruance class destroyer armament VLS is now a redirect to {{Spruance class destroyer armament}}; The only article linking to that template is the Spruance-class infobox subtemplate. I'm requesting deletion of the VLS redirect, along with the now-orphaned Template:Spruance class destroyer armament ABL.  — sbb (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_25&oldid=1256780477"