Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 30 July 2 >

July 1 edit

Template:Heartland Conference navbox 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) 23:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The conference is now defunct with members joining the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association, and the Lone Star Conference the template is now unused with no practical function. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:29, 1 July 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:Political groups of the European Parliament (6th) 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⚡ 04:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Not used at Political groups of the European Parliament, which uses {{European Parliament standings (6th)}} instead. Gonnym (talk) 17:24, 1 July 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:2006 FIFA World Cup qualification - AFC goalscorers 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⚡ 04:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused at 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)#Goalscorers. Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:27, 2 July 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:Annotated image/Walcott view 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. (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A simple template that is used on one page. No reason for this to be a template and should be subst in the article and deleted. Gonnym (talk) 17:08, 1 July 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:Annotated image/Salticid overview 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⚡ 04:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image template. Gonnym (talk) 17:06, 1 July 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:Annotated image/Nervous System 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⚡ 04:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image template. File:TE-Nervous system diagram.svg seems to have replaced it. Gonnym (talk) 17:05, 1 July 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:Annotated image/Cagayan Valley 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⚡ 04:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image template. Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 1 July 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:Annotated image/Arthropod cuticle 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⚡ 04:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image template. Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 1 July 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:2015 AFF U-16 Youth Championship Group A 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⚡ 04:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged (with attribution) with the parent article per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:26, 2 July 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:Muhammad's ancestors 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. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen ahnentafels in footer navboxes like that before. Better transform into a Template:Ahnentafel conventional in article format in "Ancestry" section. See also previous merge proposal: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 7. PPEMES (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been designed to link the paternal fathers of Muhammad with each other. In Arab World, the father side of ancestry is more interesting.--Maher27777 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's not the Arab world. PPEMES (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Template:Ahnentafel should be used instead in the articles' body.--Darwinek (talk) 18:57, 3 July 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:Muhammad's ancestors2 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) 23:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen ahnentafels in footer navboxes like that before. Better transform into a Template:Ahnentafel conventional in article format in "Ancestry" section. See also previous merge proposal: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 7. PPEMES (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ahnentafel could be used to navigate from Muhammad to his parents, but not vice versa. We need the template to link all of Muhammad's parents together.--Maher27777 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Template:Ahnentafel should be used instead in the articles' body.--Darwinek (talk) 18:57, 3 July 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:Partisan sources 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Partisan sources with Template:Third-party.
The problem with partisan sources is that they are not independent of the subject, but not bias (as WP:BIASED does not prohibit sources with an agenda). And what's the difference between a clear and a pronounced agenda? wumbolo ^^^ 23:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any outcome is acceptable to me. I wonder whether User:JzG's original point might have been more "biased" than "non-independent", though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge although nothing needs to be added to the third party tag in my view, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or just keep the Third-party one as is. No strong opinion on which, although I prefer the phrasing on the latter, and I think there's no need to expand or amend it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A partisan source can be a self-published source, but a self-published source is not always partisan, so I'm not following this. E.g., I spotted {{Third-party}} at the article Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd. It's place there is questionable, but anyway, that's how I found this nom. It would make more sense to merge {{Third-party}} with {{POV}}. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are two separate problems. On Sober Reflection (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As On Sober Reflection points out, these are two different problems. There's a degree of overlap, but they are distinct enough that they merit separate handling.
The partisan source flag relates only to the issue of bias, and whether that source can be reliable with respect to the subject of the article, or at least of the material being discussed in that portion of the article.
The third-party flag can relate to bias, but it can also point up where some material appears is not published other than by the subject of the article. That's material not only to bias, but also to whether the material in question is even worth noting, if no unaffiliated source has bothered to report on it. You can consider that a species of bias, I suppose, but I see it as distinct, with flavors of both bias and notability.
If a source is marked as "partisan", it brings into mind whether the source can be trusted; if the source is marked as non-third-party, it brings to mind whether the material is worthy of inclusion, even if trusted. TJRC (talk) 21:14, 9 July 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_July_1&oldid=905571257"