The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
per NFL staff footer discussion, linking between staff templates is excessive. Frietjes ( talk) 14:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 11:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This template is almost unusual rather than a plain table. 202.164.39.147 ( talk) 02:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Unused. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 01:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
per NFL staff footer discussion, linking between staff templates is excessive. Frietjes ( talk) 14:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Izno ( talk) 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content.Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 14:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗ plicit 11:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This template is almost unusual rather than a plain table. 202.164.39.147 ( talk) 02:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Unused. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 01:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)