Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 23 November 25 >

November 24[edit]

Template:PD-USGov-Interior-HABS[edit]

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image copyright tag. Future HABS images can be tagged {{PD-USGov}} or, better, uploaded to Commons. Wikiacc () 23:11, 24 November 2019 (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).

Template:PD-NJGov[edit]

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 Fastily (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This file copyright tag is not properly used by any file. It applies only to data and facts, which are not copyrighted anyway by US law. See the deletion discussion for the Commons equivalent. Wikiacc () 23:04, 24 November 2019 (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).

Module:IPAc[edit]

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 move to sandbox. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-alpha module abandoned since 2013 and used only on one talk page archive. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the proposal has not been archived. I still think it would make a lot of sense to use this system. Many readers don't know IPA, and automatically generating explanations for each character in the mouseover text would be quite informative to many. --Yair rand (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only page that actually uses the module (as opposed to linking to it) is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 113. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The archive page shouldn't need to use this archiving module since it's already archived. I always hate to see source code contributions deleted, as, presumably, someone went to a bit of trouble to code this. That said, if it's not being maintained, that's problematic, too. And, if the editor returns, we can always undelete to his or her sandbox, correct?--Doug Mehus T·C 21:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The author is Yair rand which commented on this very thread, and the module isn't related to archiving. I don't see any problem with it being used for showing of it's functionality at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 113. The module itself seems to be working, just not with no consensus for deployment. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a sensible feature which I think I would support if Yair rand opend another proposal to implement it. Since it's possible that it will be useful and it's working it shouldn't be deleted. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:48, 24 November 2019 (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).

2016–17 FIBA Europe Cup group standings[edit]

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. per multiple prior discussions Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2019 (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).

Template:2019 Singapore NFL Div 2 table[edit]

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:24, 25 November 2019 (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).

Template:WP Contents article[edit]

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/topics redesign has been tagged historical for over 12 years so it is unlikely that this template will ever be used again and it is currently unused. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, old and used for a very long time. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2019 (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).

Template:Monthly clean-up category/Type/User-created public domain images (no Commons)[edit]

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 speedy delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User-created public domain images (no Commons) has been deleted so this template is useless. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2019 (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).

Template:Monthly clean-up category/Messages/Non-standard portal pages[edit]

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 speedy delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-standard_portal_pages has been deleted as per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_8#Category:Non-standard_portal_pages so this template is useless. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2019 (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).

Template:Terrell County, Texas[edit]

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. czar 23:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN. There are exactly 2 articles here, and no chance this could ever be expanded. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, but question for nom, is there not a municipalities and counties of Texas template we could add to these two articles? Also, I'd recommend trying to batch these nominations in future. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll investigate that further, I happened across these two somewhat by chance and they were the only obvious howlers I caught at a quick glance (I'm a New Englander, so I'm much more familiar with the structure of those articles). Seems like there should be something like that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Blade of the Northern Lights, Yeah, sounds good. Doug Mehus T·C 19:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While searching around, I did find one more really obvious one at Template:Roberts County, Texas (if people think it's worth bundling that'd be fine with me). Am still trying to figure out the general organization of things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2019 (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).

Template:POTD/2023-09-03[edit]

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is unused and we don't need POTD templates that are four years into the future. These templates can be recreated in 2023 but we don't need them now. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only three POTD templates that are four years into the future. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep 2023 will come one day and these are in the queue just like any other nomination I really don't see any good reason to remove them even though it's a bit silly, especially since they're on big anniversaries. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bad precedent. We don't want 1000 new templates for date 4 years in the future just because someone wants to do it. --Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2019 (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).

Module:Cabinet members[edit]

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pppery, Question for you, could this module's source code be used to more easily design the templates for articles like Canadian Senators Group and Senate of Canada? If so, how would that work, and I'm wondering if we could sandbox this? If not, then I support deleting per your usual diligence. Doug Mehus T·C 19:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2019 (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).

Template:Map-loc[edit]

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an attempt to replace coord/mapframe, but it's currently only used on Falklands War to generate two useless footnotes such as "Location: "Bomb Alley" San Carlos Water, Falkland Islands" after Bomb Alley. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2019 (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).

Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War[edit]

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a lot of the same reasons the "Cold War II" category was deleted. The template is a mess of original research and undue weight. There is not even consensus among reliable sources that a second cold war has started, let alone which events are part of "inter cold war tensions". Look at all the stuff that's listed here—Political status of Puerto Rico? Apartheid? Even the more plausible links are still not supportable by the consensus of reliable sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Jamez42, KasimMejia, George Ho, and Darwinek: from the talk page discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left notices about this discussion at the relevant Wikiprojects: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cold War. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion I've started this article trying to make it similar to Template:Cold War. The original cold war template did not have any sources linking one event to another similar to the current one. When it comes to the name "Second Cold War", some analysts have dubbed this name which should make it enough to be used, there is an article with the name as well. The Doomsday Clock, states that it is 2 minutes to midnight. The closest it has ever been, tied to 1953. In fact it wasn't this close for the most part of the Cold War. Meaning the current tensions or if you call it Second Cold War is much severe at this point than the classic cold war. Finally, when it comes to unrelated events such as "Political status of Puerto Rico? Apartheid?". I agree. The template is not perfect, it could be substantially improved. I invite all users pinged to improve the template, considering the tensions, this template could become very vital to Wikipedia. KasimMejia (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Second Cold War article makes clear that the "Second Cold War" is by no means a precise term with a consistent definition, but rather a description applied to different conflicts by different commentators. The Doomsday Clock and your view of the severity of "the current tensions" are irrelevant to this discussion. The idea that the template could someday become vital to Wikipedia is a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue and not a valid reason for keeping. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Doomsday Clock and your view of the severity of "the current tensions" are irrelevant to this discussion". It is not my view, it is that of world's atomic scientists, in fact, looks like it is your personal view to disregard these sourced facts. When it comes to WP:CB, the template is already vital as it needs to be to remain, saying it could be improved does not equal WP:CB. KasimMejia (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging some participants, @Dimadick, Bonthefox3, SpinnerLaserz, and Hanafi455:. KasimMejia (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion There are sources on both the legacy of the Cold War and Cold War II, and they should not be ignored. The template can be improved, but deleting it does not help navigation. Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion We are still entering the legacy of the Cold War because even though the USSR has been dissolved, it are still having political tensions with the Russians. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another gargantuan template lumping together dozens of articles not even remotely related to each other. It is a massive original research too.--Darwinek (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original cold war template's events are not backed by sources neither. KasimMejia (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or if kept, rename and reconstruct) - This is the template reincarnation of the category deleted for similar reasons as this nomination. We shouldn't show readers that events are automatically connected to CWII, should we? Also, the "keep" votes by those primarily contributing to the template do not adequately address sourcing/verification concerns. Another "keep" vote seems to admit that the template still has issues that should be resolved, but resolving the issues would require consensus at the talk page, which became near-impossible in one discussion about the CWII section of the template. Assumption that the template of original Cold War is "unsourced" (i.e. based on no sources, or doesn't require sources) and inspired this template seems... (to me) bizarre at best. BTW, the one creating the template has received messages from those concerned about the edits on related topics. George Ho (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those in favor of deletion have not addressed that the original cold war template's events are not backed by sources neither. I support renaming and reconstruction. KasimMejia (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While adding references in a template isn't fully necessary, that alone doesn't sufficiently justify including an event as part of the template. An event article should have a reliable source verifying the connection between the original Cold War and an event itself. George Ho (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be clear that a Second Cold War is going on, again between the US and Russia. There are the proxy wars (Syria, Ukraine), the minor players trying to switch sides / game both sides (Turkey, Ukraine), the frozen conflicts (Georgia, Ukraine). There is a Cold War once again, with Russia trying to face the US and China trying soft power (finances etc.) so far. Additionally, both the US and Russia are withdrawing from arms limitation treaties (ABM, INF) etc.. Heracletus (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet so far, reliable sources aren't unanimous about whether another Cold War is already happening. I don't know why Russia-US tensions are emphasized a lot, while US-China tensions are put aside. George Ho (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template includes US-China tensions as well. KasimMejia (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a way that's part of the problem—the template lumps together completely different conflicts, crises, and organizations that aren't identified as part of a single topic by reliable sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into something like Late-XXC global conflicts and Early-XXIC global conflicts. Second Cold War does have a few sources, but has a WP:RELTIME problem and to me seems somewhat too WP:CRYSTALly for this navbox template. We don't have the hindsight of historians of the 2050s to easily judge an NPOV, RS-justified way to group world-scale (mostly) low-intensity military conflict from 1989 to the present. The overall context of sociopolitical struggles for dominance is that today's world is incredibly networked and interlinked. The 2019 wave of horizontally organised, sustained popular protests (HK, Arab world, Moscow election, Latin America) that in many cases have overturned governments is a continuation of what is a major limiting factor on military "conquest". Describing the global struggles for sociopolitical power as a second cold war seems too close to WP:FRINGE to me; some sources do exist in favour of this classification - it's not complete lunacy, but they seem to me to be in a small minority. Boud (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most keep !voters are primarily discussing whether the second cold war exist, not whether we should have this template on over 50 pages suggesting a link between that article and a second Cold War. To me putting this template on all those article, especially since I haven't seen a single one mentioning the second Cold War, is contradictory to all of out main content policies, and thus the template in it's current form should be deleted to avoid this issue, pherhaps a heavily trimmed version could be justified if someone points out some events that clearly are part of the second Cold War, or a version converted into a referenced list of events some sources consider part of the second Cold War as a part of the Second Cold War article. A rename losing the connection to a second cold war could also work if all types of conflicts of the last few decades are included. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I have not participated: My only concern regarding the template is original research and maybe even WP:SYNTH. Other than that, I'm not sure what's the best option to solve the problem. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid delete per WP:OR if nothing else. --Izno (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, looks like WP:OR to me. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes. Solid delete, this is blatant WP:OR and reads like fantasy. There is no consensus that a second Cold War is even ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:50, 3 December 2019 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_24&oldid=929600369"