Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 27 May 29 >

May 28

[edit]

Template:Mining reality television

[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) 21:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a notable intersection of topics Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:43, 28 May 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:Infobox CIS University Cup

[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) 21:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{Infobox hockey tournament season}}. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 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:Campaignbox Operations near Saint Mark's

[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 no consensus for most, but delete "Campaignbox Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach", redirect "Campaignbox Operations to Blockade the Texas Coast II", and redirect "Campaignbox Operations Against Vicksburg". Please feel free to renominate any of these for further, more targeted, discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These campaignbox templates are not transcluded in article space, and the articles that they mention already use more comprehensive templates, including {{Campaignbox Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach}}, {{Campaignbox Operations to Blockade the Texas Coast}}, {{Campaignbox Operations to Control Indian Territory}}, and {{Campaignbox Vicksburg Campaign}}. I redirected them to those templates, as appropriate for the articles therein, but I was reverted, so here we are at TfD. If these unused templates are usable, they should be used. If not, they should be deleted or userfied. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The source for all of the WP:MILHIST civil war campaignboxes is the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission of the American Battlefield Protection Program, a unit of the National Park Service. See [1]. These groupings of battles into campaigns were done by professional historians and not done merely based on geographical proximity. Campaigns factor in the dates of the battles and commanders involved in planning and executing them, and yes, some of them have only a single battle in the campaign. Mojoworker (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some additional history (explaining decisions made 19 years ago) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Archive 6#American Civil War campaignbox templates 2: "Over seven years ago a decision was made to represent the ACW campaigns described in http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm with campaignboxes, regardless of the number of battles in each campaign. Each battle looks the same now because the infobox is followed by a campaignbox. About four years ago some of the one-battle campaigns were rolled into larger categories, although I question whether that helped anyone. My opinion is that I would rather be faced with campaignboxes that sometimes do not have a large number of links than with articles that have arbitrarily different formats. And I do not think editing dozens of articles to react to deleted templates is worth anyone's time. Hal Jespersen (talk) 5:51 pm, 2 July 2010, Friday (11 years, 10 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−5)" Hal Jesperson is no longer active on Wikipedia, but I think he may have been one of the founders of WP:MILHIST – it was before my time here – in any case he was fundamental to its early work. The link to the NPS website no longer works, but the campaign data is preserved in the PDF that I linked above. Mojoworker (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. For a variety of reasons - some are navboxes with only one article linked, they're all seemingly redundant to other, more comprehensive templates, and none of them are getting any use. As @Jonesey95 said, if they're useful, they should actually be put into use. However, even if they are deemed worthy of inclusion, the templates with just a single article linked should still be deleted. -fuzzy510 (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am wondering whether there are any subsets of these that can be merged into a smaller set of templates that actually link incidents related by time or proximity. I don't know the field well enough to know this offhand, but it seems like that may be a more useful solution. If that is not feasible, then delete. BD2412 T 02:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BD2412: - with 17 FAs for American Civil War articles, I guess I'm as qualified as most active here (I'm unaware of anyone who's written professionally in the subject matter now that Hal Jesperson and Scott Mingus are no longer active). Some of these can indeed be merged into more general ones, but the problem with some of these larger templates such as Template:Campaignbox Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach is that we wind up making connections that no responsible historian has ever made if we lump too many together, which is quite dubious from a navigational perspective. Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you wondering, Hal Jesperson is basically the godfather of all our American Civil War coverage and is a professional cartographer who has been published in scholarly books. I don't think the bulk nomination is best here, my thoughts are below:
redirect Operations against Vicksburg to the Vicksburg one since we're covering the 1862 and 1863 campaigns for Vicksburg in the single Vicksburg campaign article
redirect Texas Coast II to the other Texas Coast one as the two are closely related to each other and navigation is probably best served by a combined template
Strong keep the Indian Territory one as it is referring to a completely distinct campaign and the fact that it's not linked is an oversight/error that I will correct after posting this.
keep all the others as these are the campaign classifications used by professional historians.
delete Template:Campaignbox Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach as it hodge-podges together unrelated events in a manner that is both highly confusing and not a relationship closely made by RS (in addition to the NPS PDF linked above {{Cite Kennedy 1998}} uses these exact classifications, as well as several other sources. The Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach is an absolute dumpster fire as none of those articles have anything to do with each other besides being in a vague geographic area - no serious historian I've ever read from (and I own about 150 books on the Civil War) would consider there to be any connection whatsoever between Olustee and Port Hudson; no template should ever try to make such connections when no responsible historian would. Additionally pinging some recently active editors in the ACW sphere @BusterD, Djmaschek, Donner60, and Vami IV: Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find this to be a well-reasoned set of proposals, and am glad to support it. BD2412 T 02:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some of the articles to transclude the correct templates before I saw the additional discussion here. I think the problem with Template:Campaignbox Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach is right there in its name – it's lumping together all the battles of an entire theater and calling it a campaign. I concur that it should be deleted. Mojoworker (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of the other ACW campaignboxes, it does look like there's some need for cleanup, although not necessarily these. Template:Campaignbox Operations Against Galveston looks redundant to Template:Campaignbox Operations to Blockade the Texas Coast and I'll TFD it separately. Template:Campaignbox Occupation of Indian Territory North of the Arkansas River is weirdly named; it's a one-off guerrilla raid that in Kansas that wasn't strongly related to the occupation of Indian Territory, although I'm less sure of the fix for that one. Hog Farm Talk 05:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been brought up here and seems to be a problem I have added {{Campaignbox Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach}} to this nomination. This mass nomination may get confusing, but thanks for trying to address each of these campaignboxes. In a few days, I'll try to come back to propose a consensus for each of the nominated templates, unless someone more qualified wants to do so. I expect that some of them will be kept based on the solid reasoning above and that some of them will probably head toward deletion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed the Galveston one for deletion in a separate discussion above. Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's need for cleanup in the campaignbox templates. I hadn't realized they had become so degraded. I've noticed editors in the past rolling their own campaigns based on their own inclinations instead of WP:RS. Other times editors probably think they are being helpful by combining disparate campaigns together to remove the hated one battle campaignbox without any regard for the nuance that was used in the original grouping of battles into campaigns by the original WP:RS based on location, dates, commanders, etc.
For {{Campaignbox Occupation of Indian Territory North of the Arkansas River}}, the wording is pretty much the same in the CWSAC Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields PDF, which calls the campaign Occupation of Indian Territory North of the Arkansas River (1863). It does seem a bit strangely named, but I'm not sure exactly where the fort was. The southern portion of the current town of Baxter Springs, KS is directly on the Oklahoma border. It's possible the reason the federal troops were there was in support of a campaign to occupy the Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma). The Trans-Mississippi stuff is often not well documented. Mojoworker (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned) I am of a mind with Hog Farm. To expand on his comments on the Indian Territory navbox, I'll add that Texas and the Indian Territory were also the last ACW theaters to conclude and have campaigns very distinct from one another (I think here, for example, of Shelby's attempt to invade New Mexico as compared to the battles over Galveston). That said, I'm not myself convinced of the need for two navboxes for the fight over the Texas coast. I would combine those but delineate campaigns within that theater as is done in so many other campaign navboxes. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of whatever makes sense. Thanks for linking to the American Battlefield Protection PDF, which is very useful. However, an article I wrote, Rousseau's Opelika Raid is not listed there! BTW: I added it to the Atlanta campaign, since the raiders subsequently joined Sherman's army. Djmaschek (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF will only cover the battles that fell under the CWSAC's determined study grouping. Same thing applies to Capture of Sedalia, which I wrote. Hog Farm Talk 03:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission's purpose is preservation (note the Preservation Priority listed for each battle in the report), and perhaps because, being a cavalry raid, Opelika was more a running fight, without a specific battlefield to be preserved. Seems like it does fit in the Atlanta Campaign though, for the reason you stated, as well as apparently Sherman also planned it. Mojoworker (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan: And there are 37 transclusions in article space for {{Campaignbox Lower Seaboard Theater and Gulf Approach}}. I'm not saying that one necessarily should be kept, but I want to understand your rationale, since it would seem to be an either/or situation. Mojoworker (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support User:Hog Farm's approach. @BusterD, Djmaschek, Hog Farm, Vami IV, Mojoworker, Jonesey95, Fuzzy510, and WikiCleanerMan: (I thnk I have pinged all previous commenters; I have not missed any intentionally.) I must admit that even though I have been editing and writing since 2010, I was unaware of the existence of the unused templates. Since they have been available for so many years, I might have been inclined initially to say that if they haven't been used by now, they might be of little if any future value. But as Hog Farm and others have observed, some of them have obvious usefulness and could serve to narrow some readers' search for information about discrete shorter campaigns without needing to search through a large number of articles for more targeted information. Every relevant article still needs to be written so future use also cannot be categorically ruled out. If I can ever get back to regular editing (recovering from COVID right now, among other things such as other real life matters, problems working with Huggle and a little writer's block) or if Hog Farm or anyone has the time to look at possible inclusion of existing articles sooner, I am confident that at least a few of them can be used. Good reasons to keep at least some of them have been given by several editors above. So I think the proposed approach is best. Donner60 (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider User:Hlj to be my longest wikifriendship, and he continues to be an ally to Wikipedia. That said, Hal has left us with a few messes to clean up. IMHO, our Battle of Chattanooga coverage is strangely divided, and we have all these properly constructed templates which remain unused. Not his fault; he was doing his utmost to get the pedia up to speed (from scratch) in this content area, and left us his original ACW maps, likely the best gift collection given to ANY task force. His volunteer cartography work here grew so important to us, RL people started paying him to make maps. Now comes User:Hog Farm (whom I think I first met at a discussion procedure for just such a template) who by sheer industry has become our task force leader and deservedly so. I'll take support Hog Farm's suggestions as my starting position, with respect to Mojoworker. We still have some untangling to do. BusterD (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:09, 28 May 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:FutureHypothetical-NHL Divisional

[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) 21:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Not sure why it was ever created. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 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:Infobox Goodall Cup Finals

[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) 21:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by {{Infobox Stanley Cup Finals|name=Goodall Cup ... }}. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 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:Infobox Memorial Cup

[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 relisted on 2022 June 5. Izno (talk) 00:15, 5 June 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:Hockey team gm

[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) 21:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 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:Public transport sign

[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) 21:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template no longer does anything. Previously, it inserted a graphic into an article, but that graphic was deleted from Commons in November 2014. Imzadi 1979 → 11:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 28 May 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:MOSMETRO color

[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 00:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Moscow Metro. Gonnym (talk) 06:46, 28 May 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_28&oldid=1091657856"