Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 16 November 18 >

November 17[edit]

Template:Tunisia squad - 2007 FIBA Africa Championship for Women[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) 00:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, squad membership is preserved in the squads article Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2017 (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).

[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) 00:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, probably violates MOS:ICON Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2017 (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:Tirana District[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) 00:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, redundant to Template:Tirana div Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2017 (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:Tippett operas[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) 00:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, replaced by Template:Michael Tippett Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2017 (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:Timeline Essendon Football Club[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) 00:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, should be added to articles or deleted Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Aesthetically, I would prefer not to see it added to an article. Jenks24 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2017 (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:Thomas-NBR-Vol1[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) 00:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • DELETE - It appears that these was removed from North British Railway at this edit when the source list was removed from the article. Previously there was a consolidated source list which is now scattered in the reference list. It appears that my attempt to make sources easy to identify with associated templates in this and other articles has been rejected. I had used the template elsewhere is other NBR related articles, however as they have been removed I cannot recall where they were located. So just delete these two and all the other railway book templates I have created to make life easier. --Stewart (talk | edits) 12:10, 18 November 2017 (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:Thomas-NB-Atlantics[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) 00:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • DELETE - It appears that this was removed from the articles that I created it for. Previously there was a consolidated source list which are now scattered in reference lists. It appears that my attempt to make sources easy to identify with associated templates in articles has been rejected. I had used the template in NBR related articles, however as they have been removed I cannot recalled where they were located. So just delete these and all the other railway book templates I have created to make life easier. --Stewart (talk | edits) 12:10, 18 November 2017 (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:Texas party primaries, 2002[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) 00:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates tables in Texas gubernatorial election, 2002#Primaries, Texas gubernatorial election, 1998#Primaries, Texas gubernatorial election, 1994#Primaries Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2017 (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:Texas gubernatorial election, 2002[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) 00:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates tables in Texas gubernatorial election, 2002#Results, Texas gubernatorial election, 1998#Results, ... Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2017 (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:10,000 rushing yards club[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 Withdrawn. —Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RoyalsLife 16:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RoyalsLife: if you are suggesting this should be deleted, you should provide a reason for deletion. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes Never mind. Lizard said we should delete it, but I guess he changed his mind. RoyalsLife 16:44, 17 November 2017 (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:Minhaj-ul-Quran International[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 relisted on 2017 November 25. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 25 November 2017 (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:Bayview Park Ferry colour[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) 00:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

decommissioned (or replaced by other lines). Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2017 (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:Neutral Bay Ferry link[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) 00:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, replaced by simple article linking. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2017 (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:Taronga Zoo Ferry colour[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) 00:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by {{Sydney Ferries color|Taronga Zoo}}, {{Sydney Ferries color|Neutral Bay}}, ... Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2017 (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:Tajikistan presidential election, 1999[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) 00:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, duplicates the table in Tajik presidential election, 1999 Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unnecessary. Number 57 23:16, 18 November 2017 (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:Taiwan Administrative Divisions[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) 00:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, administrative divisions of Taiwan are using {{Infobox Province of China (ROC)}} or {{Infobox settlement}} Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2017 (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:Taegeuk mark[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) 00:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, not clear where it would be used Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (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:Tableheadingparty[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) 00:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2017 (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:Miranda[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) Nihlus 01:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was horrified when I found out that this was actually a template: Miranda is a self-published author whose use in articles on cardinals and conclaves on Wikipedia is something that makes their content horrible, fancrufty, and next to unreadible in many cases. He is not a scholar in the field: he is a librarian who researches cardinals and conclave histories as a hobby, and his website is not peer reviewed. It is simply not a reliable source by any stretch of the term, and Wikipedia should not be encouraging doing our readers a disservice by making it easier to link to him. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think that's an over-reaction. Salvador Miranda's articles appear to be a good brief summary of information from the sources, which he lists, without embellishment. His site appears to be approved by the US Library of Congress and Encyclopedia Britannica, so presumably has been 'peer reviewed'. If the Wikipedia articles are poor, that is a reflection of their editors, not this source, and needs to be addressed on the article talk pages. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that is not an overreaction. It is a self-published source that goes through zero peer-review. Brittanica and the LOC don't "approve" it. He does not even have a PhD in a related field or even at all: he has a masters of library science and does this as a hobby. Any usage of him in Wikipedia is contrary to our policy on citing reliable sources. A Google site-specific search also finds no mention of Miranda or links to his website from Britannica.TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What Bermicourt refers to is the LOC’s archive, and the site's inclusion in a former Britannica feature, their iGuide. He is still currently linked to by EB. On this page, for example, specifically the external links section. While the author does not have a PhD, I find it very odd that you mention his M.S. in Library Science, but not his M.A. in Modern European History which is actually relevant to the subject. While I am not going to judge whether he makes for a suitable source or not, your portrayal of him seems quite unfair. Tom-L (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The LOC is simply a web archive, not an assessment of the reliability. My portrayal of him is entirely fair: he has a terminal MA, which is not an academic qualification that makes one a scholar on the subject. I didn't think to mention it, because in academia it really wouldn't be considered worth mentioning: to my knowledge, he has never held a faculty appointment in this area, and the website is no more reliable than a blog that I would personally publish. The source is unreliable, and we should not be encouraging its use on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since when did we require specific academic criteria, including what jobs people have held, for the authors of every Wikipedia source? Especially when they list the sources they themselves have used. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did not claim that the LOC is an assessment of reliability, though I do note you ignore the Britannica link. Your portrayal is entirely unfair. For some reason you have so far neglected to explain, you accuse him of somehow being responsible for "horrible, fancrufty, and next to unreadible" articles on the English Wikipedia. Now, his source may very well not be acceptable to Wikipedia standards, but your dismissive argument, e.g. that "in academia it really wouldn't be considered worth mentioning", goes completely against what I have been taught in the historiography course I took in university. Skimming his website, it seems to be a dry, consistent and too uncritical synthesis of properly sourced information. By that very reasoning, should we not also reject Wikipedia itself? Bah, never mind. Misplaced condescension is why I gave up on this project years ago… Tom-L (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we do not allow citing ourself. A terminal masters is not an academic qualification that would be taken seriously by most.WP:SELFPUBLISH requires that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The fact that Miranda only has a terminal MA means that he is most decidedly not an expert in the field, so you are correct that it is relevant in that sense, but it only further shows why he should not be cited by our guidelines.
              My portrayal is completely fair, and the tendency for Wikipedians to prefer to cite an unreliable self-published source rather than omit information that cannot be verified to reliable sources is one of the major negatives the project faces when writing on religious history: Miranda has no place on Wikipedia as a source unless it can be verified by other sourcing, and if it can be verified by other sourcing, there is no reason to cite him. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Repeating that your portrayal is entirely fair is not an argument. Repeating your pseudo-academic condescension is also not an argument. And if this was merely about reliability per Wikipedia standards, you could have written something in the vein of "This source is not reliable per Wikipedia standards, so this template is not needed". Something I’d entirely agree with, Miranda’s bibliography should be used as a crutch and not a source. Still, I don't know what bone you have to pick with this guy, or what else caused your rant of hyperbole and condescension. If you don't actually have a bone to pick with this guy in particular, I would advise you to choose your language more carefully next time. Plenty of Wikipedia contributors I have encountered “only” have a Master’s at best. I see that you are an administrator, so I'll leave it at this. Tom-L (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 15:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my entries above. Bermicourt (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the duplicate !vote above. You can't !vote twice in the same XfD. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable (does not have a Wikipedia article) self-published author, unreliable source. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the only Salvador Miranda with an article is a middle distance runner. I see no WP articles verifying the importance or notability of this particular source. Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2017 (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-US-Medical imaging[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) 00:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and broken, appears to be a cut-and-paste copy of commons:Template:PD-US-Medical_imaging, which means that images with this tag should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we fix it so it works here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you fix it by uploading the image directly to commons. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2017 (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/2017_November_17&oldid=1138373349"