Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 December 15

< December 14	December 16 >

December 15 edit

Kivu 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 keep. ✗plicit 03:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kivu conflict detailed map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Module:Kivu conflict detailed map

These sadly fail WP:V. Links in edit summaries are not sufficient attribution, not to mention the template was created based on map copying. Firestar464 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why exactly do you think that links in edit summaries are "not sufficient attribution"? The map is better sourced than many other template-maps. Applodion (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists, but we need to have inline citations for anything likely to be challenged, per WP:CS. Firestar464 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and please copy the source links from the edit summaries into the template documentation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A better way would be to have a Control of Towns page like Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Firestar464 (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm also not seeing the WP:V issue, as WP:V is about the existence of sources somewhere, not them being presented in a specific format. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 17 December 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:2011 Super Outbreak/Deadly 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 after merging with the other map template as a compromise. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 Super Outbreak/Deadly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use template insufficient complex to maintain in its own template. Izno (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Useful template that provides context to the page on which it resides. Adding it to the page itself will make it too long to handle templates correctly. United States Man (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like United State Man, I find that this is a fairly complex template. From a perspective of organization and page code length, it would be better to keep this table in a separate template. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
substitute and delete, not that complex. the idea that adding it to the page itself will make it too long to handle templates correctly requires some actual evidence to backup such a claim. Frietjes (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can literally do it in a draft and see that this is going to be the case. The evidence isn't hard to obtain. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did it with show preview and got 4 to 5 seconds for both versions per the stats reported in the page source, definitely not too long to handle templates correctly. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? I'm not seeing anything broken. As a general rule, adding more layers of templates makes performance issues worse, not better. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be a map of only the tornadoes with fatalities during the 2011 Super Outbreak. I feel that this map would be more useful if it had a better explanation of its purpose. The table below in List of tornadoes in the 2011 Super Outbreak#April 25 event uses boldface in the 'summary' column to denote when a specific tornado resulted in a death. Consider adjusting the caption, adding page text, nav links, and/or merging the data into Template:2011 Super Outbreak/Map. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 13:01, 19 December 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:Deployment schedule 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 23:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Deployment schedule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:20, 18 December 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:Row hover highlight/style.css 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) 14:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Row hover highlight/style.css (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates the correctly-named Template:Row hover highlight/styles.css * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:20, 18 December 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:MissAmericas 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MissAmericas footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Appears to have been orphaned after all relevant navboxes were merged into {{Miss America titleholders}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 18 December 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:Italians of Istria and Dalmatia 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) 14:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italians of Istria and Dalmatia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to be some sort of a weird WP:SOAPBOX violation. Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC) I noticed this after it was added to a bunch of articles using minor edits and no edit summary. The user who did it has a lot of edits so I didn't go through a mass rollback, and I can't see that they were informed about WP:ARBMAC, but I am close to treating this as abuse. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of what? Propaganda for what? It's literally a sidebox for historical context on the pages about Italians and respective heritage in Istria and Dalmatia (less than 10 pages). Is giving some historical context an abuse now? Am I breaking some law if I talk about the French heritage in Canada, for example? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS. @Joy: that's not even sarcasm, I'm really confused by this discussion. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a normal use for a template, it's like you're adding an explanatory editorializing note everywhere, which is absolutely not a normal way to present historical context in the English Wikipedia. You're disrupting Wikipedia to make some sort of a point, it looks like you want more people to read about Foibe massacres etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sideboxes are not an invention of mine, they're always been part of Wikipedia. I added the link to Foibe massacres#Background because there's a huge section of historical context, not to make "more people read about" it. Using that mentality, no link should exist. You could even remove the link if that's the will of the Wikipedia community, I couldn't care less. That's not the purpose of the sidebox. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, you just dared to write me "You're disrupting Wikipedia to make some sort of a point". What fricking point? That's basic historical knowledge. There's no goddamn point to make. You're disrupting the common sense. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Side boxes' are governed by WP:SIDEBAR. This just isn't following the guideline. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Folks, let's take it down a notch, yes? Joy is right: WP:SIDEBAR prescribes the use of sidebar templates, and they're used for navigation, not explanatory text such as this. The text is not the problem, the presentation of it is. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a proper sidebar template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 18 December 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:Lists of ambassadors of Afghanistan 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) 14:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of ambassadors of Afghanistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of {{AfghanDiplomats}}, mostly with redlinks. 25stargeneral (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 18 December 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:2017 Hokkaido American Football Association standings 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) 01:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Subst and delete. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 18 December 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).