Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 26 October 28 >

October 27[edit]

Template:2020 XFL staff footer[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

per NFL staff footer discussion, linking between staff templates is excessive. Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski, Nigej, 174.29.71.31, Joseph2302, Bagumba, and Wjemather: participants in the October 19 discussion. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2022 (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:NJ Atlantic County Commissioners[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is linked nowhere on WP. There is some utility, but none of the members on the commission have articles, and this is purely in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Template is completely broken anyway, must've been made long ago and since it's not used in any articles as a template, its status must have been ignored. There are templates for every NJ county just like this. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I will also be recommending the deletion of Template:NJ Bergen County Commissioners, Template:NJ Burlington County Commissioners and all the other ones that are also straight up orphans. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This template is NOT used in any of these articles you linked. Edit source, search Template:NJ Atlantic County Commissioners is not used... so not sure why you would say otherwise. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so since NJ changed the names of their county officers from county freeholders to county commissioners, I did not see Template:NJ Atlantic County Commissioners (since they're added as Template: NJ Atlantic County Freeholders). Regardless, this info should be integrated into the articles and not used in the form of a template. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of those listed above violate WP:TG, so the existence of them is not a valid reason to keep this one, which is also a clear template space violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates WP:TG, particularly Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2022 (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:Ford North America vehicles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 14:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in three pages, and all those pages also have the more commonly used and updated Template:Ford vehicles. If it weren't redundant, I would just redirect this template to that one. Vossanova o< 14:00, 27 October 2022 (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:School-leaving age[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 11:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template is almost unusual rather than a plain table. 202.164.39.147 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pending a comprehensible rationale. This is a typical special-purpose table row template that makes it much easier to set up and maintain a wikitable than it usually is. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or should just merge into plain table instead, without age gap? 103.38.5.226 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete single article template used to generate boilerplate. -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete per 65. I don't see the necessity of setting the colors in a template. (OSE argument: everyone else who uses a color in their tables gets along just fine.) --Izno (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2022 (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:Catholic bishops and archbishops in Scotland[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and same list of articles already transcluded using Template:Catholic dioceses in England and Wales and Template:Catholic Church in Scotland. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2022 (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:Cross posted to[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2022 (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:Afghanistan conflict detailed map[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 15:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fails WP:V. The war is over and this map has outlived its usefulness. People are updating control of towns based on hearsay (from Twitter, including citing rebels themselves!) that there was a clash in the town with rebels. A clash does not mean control, and these reports are unverified. RS tell us the Taliban have effective control of the whole country. Many of the reports being used are wildly out of date. These clashes need to be discussed in prose; there is not enough verifiable information for a map. 25stargeneral (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not entirely sure what effective control means, but consider putting any recent info from RS into Republican insurgency in Afghanistan, as its tone seems to imply there's a reasonable area not under their control, and its lead seem to be over half a year out of date. If poor info is being put into the detailed map, it likely is ending up there too. Banak (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment Yes there is a thing with being out of date due to the poor information environment (this is why the idea of removing non-NRF rebellions from the map after a certain amount of inactivity has been floated before). However, tweets are used in compliance with WP:TWITTER and WP:SPS (I don't use anything that isn't from a news outlet or a verified journalist.) I don't see anyone citing the NRF spokesman either (he's a clown but that's besides the point).
Regarding clashes, I think we're well-aware that they don't mean control. There was a questionable addition of "clashes" to the map at the beginning of October, which was reverted. However, I don't see anyone purporting that "clashes = control." Firestar464 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Firestar464: You cited the NRF spokesman by using this source: [1], and there are others like that. These are unconfirmed reports with no follow up. This map is unencyclopedic. 25stargeneral (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that one? I didn't cite him in the actual edit; I simply found an article with the names of the villages so that I could search for coords. --Firestar464 (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the map most certainly may be somewhat out of date in some areas, the claim against us using twitter as a source doesn't make sense as we have only been using (as Firestar said) either tweets coming from Afghan journalists, or news sources and we have even reverted some territorial changes on the map which aren't covered by any RS. Cryw 9 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is that the war is over, so the map is no longer needed. No insurgent group is holding significant amounts of Afghan territory for any substantial amount of time. I would like to see an actual RS article saying otherwise, since there hasn't been anything other than clashes described since Panjshir Valley, last resistance holdout in Afghanistan, falls to the Taliban. This is a low-level insurgency, and it is misleading to be portraying it as a full-scale civil war. 25stargeneral (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not per the nominator's rationale, but per Talk:Taliban insurgency#RfC on the Taliban insurgency situation map establishing this map shouldn't be used. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was referring to the map on Commons, not the template map. --Firestar464 (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are those different? My understanding was that the map on Commons was generated from the template map, and thus the two are the same. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons map was entirely based on some Twitter dude, while the one currently being discussed was obviously better sourced (albeit somewhat polluted as well) AFAIK. Hence the debate about the Commons map. Firestar464 (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The one currently being discussed has no sources, other than edit summaries, which are not accepted as sources under Wikipedia policy. See my comment below. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: @Firestar464: Where are the sources for this map contained? The template doc says we should click on the link for the town/village and the article will have a source saying who controls it. Clicking on several towns marked as under resistance control, I am not seeing that information. So, as of now, the map appears to have few to no references. The bottom line is all content MUST have inline citations—edit summaries are not that. From WP:CS: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Please explain how you intend for the map to comply with this requirement, since you believe it should be kept. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point. Maybe we could have a CoC page like for Ukraine? Firestar464 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you want to keep the map then you should probably create a page like that. That will give a venue to challenge the verifiability of the content. Though, I strongly suspect there is not enough sourcing to support a map, and I don't see the need for one. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no longer necessary in a template form. --Izno (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2022 (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/2022_October_27&oldid=1120358163"