Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 3



Template:Morocco in the Eurovision Song Contest

 * 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 2020 April 11. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Morocco_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest
 * 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:Current COVID

 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC) This template almost entirely duplicates Current. Its creator has expressed rationale for it here and in another conversation on that page (which I can't link to because it'd include a template in the URL), but I don't see any modifications made in it that wouldn't also be appropriate to suggest as modifications for Current or as parameters to introduce to it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Current COVID
 * 1) Respect the ongoing discussion. Since you cited a place where the discussion is actively ongoing, keep that active discussion rolling. Raise your concern, convince people there. Dont create an alternative place to discuss the same template at the very same time. Yug  (talk)  20:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that this is an appropriate venue for a centralized discussion on whether to delete a template. The COVID-19 WikiProject page is so flooded that it is unlikely the conversation there will play out enough to reach consensus one way or the other before getting buried. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is an unhelpful move. Please can someone speedy close this, or withdraw the nom., we are trying to deal with COVID-19 matters at pace, and it is hard enough without being pulled of into deletion discussions.  The template can be deleted at any time in the future, and indeed the sooner we don't need it, or at least can mark it historical the better.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough  (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC).


 * Delete I don't see what makes COVID-19 different enough from any other current events to merit a separate template * Pppery * it has begun... 21:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep this is a global pandemic that is happening in almost every country. I think if there are some additional categories about coronavirus in this template then it can be useful.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see no reason not to keep this around short term as its going to be deleted once the pandemic ends anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, COVID is a societal changing event the ongoing pandemic is historically significant to the point it should be documented as a specifically unique current event. After the pandemic is over the template can still be retained for historical significance. Valoem talk contrib 01:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, seems useful since their all (relatively) current and a similar message is appropriate for most as opposed to having to manually add the details to the template. Once this is over or even if it calms down enough not to be "current" we can reconsider and delete.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per all. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above. It is useful for easy categorisation of a current event that will affect a large number of pages on its own merit. This is as opposed to an election, which would generally only have a 'current' template for a handful of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsdeat (talk • contribs) 00:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the specificity is appropriate for now. -Calicodragon (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Do I think it was necessary no but do I think it helpful right now yes. COVID-19 is unique and this won't start a new precedent here. This template is universally worded so it can be applied to every COVID-19 article and can replace templates like the one on List of events affected by the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic which is labeling the pandemic as an event which can cause confusion to new readers. Once the pandemic starts to wind down we can delete this template later on.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    05:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - per WP:SPIDEY Agathoclea (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2020 (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:2010 European Men's Handball Championship qualification - Group 1

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  05:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC) unused after being merged (with attribution) with the parent article per consensus in related discussions at WP:TFD Frietjes (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2010 European Men's Handball Championship qualification - Group 1
 * 2010 European Men's Handball Championship qualification - Group 2
 * 2010 European Men's Handball Championship qualification - Group 3
 * 2010 European Men's Handball Championship qualification - Group 4
 * 2010 European Men's Handball Championship qualification - Group 5
 * 2010 European Men's Handball Championship qualification - Group 6
 * 2010 European Men's Handball Championship qualification - Group 7
 * 2010 European Men's Handball Championship qualification templates
 * 2010 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 1
 * 2010 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 2
 * 2010 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 3
 * 2010 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 4
 * 2010 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 5
 * 2010 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 6
 * 2010 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 7
 * 2010 European Women's Handball Championship qualification templates
 * 2012 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 1
 * 2012 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 2
 * 2012 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 3
 * 2012 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 4
 * 2012 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 5
 * 2012 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 6
 * 2012 European Women's Handball Championship qualification - Group 7
 * 2012 European Women's Handball Championship qualification templates
 * Delete. --Gonnym (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The templates in Category:2012 European Women's Handball Championship qualification templates can also be merged into the article and then deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * now joined to this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * redirect My understanding of a merge is that the merged material that is attributed should not be deleted, but redirected for copyright reasons. Agathoclea (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * we don't redirect from template space to article space, but we could move these to article space and then redirect. however, it doesn't seem necessary since attribution was included in the edit summary when the template content was merged with the parent articles (as noted in the nomination summary). Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2020 (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:Limerick F.C. squad

 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Not useful; contains no wikilinks so does not aid navigation JMHamo (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Limerick F.C. squad
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - serves no purpose and is not needed. GiantSnowman 08:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 13:14, 4 April 2020 (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:Drogheda United F.C. squad

 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Not useful; contains one wikilink so does not aid navigation JMHamo (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Drogheda United F.C. squad
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - completely pointless template as it stands. And as Drogheda play in the semi-pro second tier of Irish football, they are very unlikely to ever have sufficient notable players to justify this template..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - serves no purpose and is not needed. GiantSnowman 08:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 13:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete not useful, subjects will probably never be notable. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2020 (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:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Singapore medical cases

 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Excessively long, WP:RAWDATA, WP:NOTNEWS. <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 03:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Singapore medical cases
 * Delete as per consensus established at Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Singapore medical cases -- AquaDTRS (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I will repeat my point I have raised: Nuke this template. At 1000 cases, this reads like a directory of cases. robertsky (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my comment. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was initially surprised to see that data at this level of detail were public, and also that it was judged appropriate to have this table on a Wikipedia page, when there were a few dozen cases. On the other hand, deleting data is not nice - I put a comment at the COVID-19 Wikidata project page in case Wikidata people are interested in preserving the data and consider it appropriate. I do worry that this could set a bad precedent for deleting the general case count tables in the COVID-19 articles. However, there is a significant difference, especially given the risk of WP:BLP violation. "5 cases on 15 March in region X of country Y" is not as BLP-risky as "63-year-old male of Swedish citizenship in same family as case 327 on 15 March, both in city-state Z, discharged on 30 March" (arbitrary fictional case). Just because the data are public does not mean that Wikipedia or Wikidata should preserve the data. I don't think it's easy to argue against deleting this particular table. Boud (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This template only informative when Singapore have few dozen of cases. But when they hit 1,000, this became ridiculous. And I also have great doubts about the reliability. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 21:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is inappropriately personal / localised information that shouldn't be kept here, particularly as with a thousand cases the notability of individual cases is questionable.--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, but is it possible to host this data on another website? 138.75.211.2 (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Straits Times is already keeping track of individual cases, so there is no need. (link: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/novel-coronavirus-cases-in-singapore) -- AquaDTRS (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete intricate detail on non notable individuals with coronavirus should not be kept per WP:BLP, WP:NOTSTATS. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's just a list of cases, and as the amount of cases in Singapore grows, it will become more unwieldy than it already is. It is also under WP:STATS, but I doubt it falls under BLP. Calicodragon (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP may be possible, if someone 'outs' one of the cases here with more personal details beyond what had been revealed by authorities without the permission of the said person. robertsky (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm going to reiterate deletion of the article; already not much details are provided nowadays. Its getting weirder day by day to keep a directory. Thanks. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2020 (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).