Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 10

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 relisted on 2024 March 18. ✗plicit 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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 13:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wayamba cricket team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Current squad template for defunct cricket team. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and TFD consensuses for similar teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 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.

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 Infobox tropical cyclone and Infobox storm after replacing with Infobox weather event, with no consensus for Infobox flood. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox tropical cyclone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox storm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox flood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It had been decided in a discussion at

Delete after replacing tranclusions with {{Infobox weather event}}. The RfC closed with consensus to replace the infoboxes with the new template which should be implemented. Gonnym (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at this stage.change to depreciate, see below
  WP:FAOWN, the "depreciation" of infobox storm needs to occur in the context of it being used on existing featured article(s) - if the new template cannot provide the same functionality as the old one, in my opinion it shouldn't be depreciated. Daniel (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  AA^Talk 20:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  So my question is, can every single current item in the current infobox be replicated in the new infobox, with the precise same descriptor? I can't see many of them on the various documentation pages, and couldn't when I checked prior to my original comment. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything worked except for active and location but those were easily added to the duration and areas parameters to allow those to be used. If there are any missing descriptors from other areas and it is discovered, it can be resolved quite easily as I did with the two I found. Every item from the infoboxes can be replicated but it is entirely possible that some descriptors might not work if they were missed. Please see [1] which I performed on the featured article you mentioned as a test. I reverted my edit once it was performed.

  AA^Talk 22:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks for doing that. The only two remaining objections from me are: 1) "duration" should either be between "formed" and "dissipated", or at worst after "dissipated". Chronoligcally it makes little sense for it to be prior to "formed"; and 2) I find "Overall effects" header to be both clunky and also a little insensitive given that within that section is fatalities and damage. Can this be coded to allow a custom header (for this article I would go with 'Storm impact' or something similar). If these two changes can be made, I am happy to support depreciation considering the template's colour scheme is gray (the bright colours are morbid in my opinion, but given this doesn't impact the article I am considering as part of my objection, I don't feel the need to focus on that). Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  AA^Talk 14:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks again for those changes. I formally support depreciation on the basis of these changes. Note that I do not support deletion, as it will break the history/oldid's of articles that used the infobox. But definitely 100% support deprecitation now. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep {{
  fait accompli at this point. But because the template and the discussion have both been targeted to cyclones, the template is not well-suited to other use-cases and no strong rationales for the change have been put forward for them. The new template is much more challenging for end-users - as demonstrated by the errors seen in the pre-TfD implementation attempt. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I just wanted to say that the template wasnt targeted towards cyclones but was intended to replace all three of these infoboxes and was developed towards the goal of doing just that. The vast majority of transclusions just happen to be for tropical cyclone and tornado articles since those are the most numerous. In terms of parameters, the new template has more features than infobox flood does which was expressed in the opening comment during the RfC even if it wasnt explicitly mentioned in that part of the comment that it included infobox flood. Specifically, there are effects items such as currency conversion, year, economic losses, missing, evacuated, etc and the ability to mention the maximum rainfall that occurred during the event. All existing items were incorporated into the infobox. There are flood articles such as

  AA^Talk 19:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]