Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 15

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. kingboyk (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:TuringPhD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Substitute and delete per nom. I can see the usefulness in easily transcluding a repeated bibliographic entry, but it is clutter and not practicable to do this for every article. Maybe if the bibliographic entry was repeated on 20-50+ articles, Pigsonthewing? (Side note: I keep thinking your name is Pigsontheswing.) Doug Mehus T·C 01:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete per nom. This can be included perfectly well as just a regular citation or reference like the millions already here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:59, 16 February 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 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. kingboyk (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Message box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Well, Message box is not needed because you can probably make the Ambox template WITHOUT a module! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I should probably point out here that I suggested that Pomegranatecookie TfD any modules they considered to be unnecessary when they asked at the help desk (Wikipedia:Help desk#Why do so many commonly-used templates use MODULES? When they don't need to?), thinking TfD was the proper venue for what is effectively a deletion request. As for the merits of this TfD itself, I'd like to see the proposed wikitext replacement before !voting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "This Lua module is used on 7,280,000+ pages, which is ≈15% of all pages". Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A few reasons. One, I believe template code to be of lower quality. While yes, it allows more editors the ability to edit the code, that in itself is not a valid reason. From what I've seen over the years, most people editing template code don't really understand the code and just copy/paste sections from other parts of the code. Module code might have it's own problems such as readability, but that's on us as a community for not creating good coding practice guidelines and requiring modules to pass them before going live. Finally the nom gave no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT so nothing really to comment on. --Gonnym (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apart from the above, it's not even true that it can be replaced with a template version. It's used by modules requiring infinite parameters such as Module:Old XfD multi. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per all above. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:13, 19 February 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).