Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 26

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< October 25 October 27 >

October 26

edit

Template:Ezuw-vandalism4

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfied Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ezuw-vandalism4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ezuw-vandalism3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ezuw-vandalism2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ezuw-vandalism1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ezuw-vandalism5a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Surely we don't accept personalized templates like this? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boing. I don't want this to get deleted. Only I would use those templates. It's not like they are the official ones. Besides, all of my warning templates (this one, and the rest) include my name in it, so if someone else used it, then the vandalizing user would call the notifier Ezekiel. I disagree for these reasons. Ezekiel! Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'. 22:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • One problem is that the standard warning templates are formatted specially so that tools like Twinkle and Huggle can recognize them, and can detect levels properly and do date headings if needed - we all use standard templates for very good reasons. And you don't really need your name in it, as warnings should be signed the conventional way anyway. Anyway, the thing to do is see what policy/consensus say about making personalized templates in Template space. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and you should not remove the deletion notice from the template - you have been informed once and have done it again. Please just leave it and wait for the outcome of this discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got each template source copied in a notepad so I could save them if they do get deleted. What I did was take each official warning template and remix them to make them like my own messages. You are saying that I should remove the part saying "I am Ezekiel."? Because THAT is what is putting my templates up for deletion? Ezekiel! Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'. 22:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that I don't know if it is acceptable to create personalized templates in Template space and to use personalized templates in place of standard warnings. So we will have to wait here and see how the discussion goes - wait for expert opinion, consensus, etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have removed the speedy deletion tags, because G1 is not applicable as they are all written in plain English. But also please note that the Wikipedia warning system does not have a level 5 - you should stick to the standard warning procedures that have been carefully worked out and decided by consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. But on some talk pages, there is like, two level 3 templates, so I figured, it would make sense to have a level 5. Okay? Ezekiel! Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'. 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't OK to unilaterally decide to use a different set of warning levels to the standard 4 that have been agreed by consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my response, copied from Ezekiel63745's talk page (and the reason why his templates aren't good-they don't work with "Huggle" and the other vandal fighting programs.)
You have no control over who can use those templates. If they're on Wikipedia, ANYONE can use them, there is no way to restrict that, and the problem is that these templates are like "phishing" templates, they're so close to the real ones, that we don't want anyone to be confused. The real vandalism warning templates also hook into "huggle" and other vandal fighting programs, so I ask you, if you are templating someone for vandalism, PLEASE use the real templates, not yours, because they work with the reporting system for wp:aiv. Thank you, --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Fred. Are you saying that the main template space is for official templates only? Ezekiel! Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'. 22:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm saying that the main template space is for templates that are re-used by many users, by the community as a whole, or in article space. These types of private warnings are not intended for the community as a whole and should not be in the main template space. However, as they're a user enhancement, I don't see them being incompatible with use of user space. (I mean, I've done it myself with User:C.Fred/cf-iblock.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A problem with using private templates even from user space is that they will confuse Twinkle and Huggle if they are used afterwards - they won't know what levels have already been given or know to create headings. If we all stick to using only standard templates, we can be confident that they will be maintained to be compatible with the common anti-vandal tools -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement to use the standard warning templates to give warnings! I regularly give warnings in non-templated text; I'll usually make a note like "level 3 equivalent" in the edit summary, but not every editor sticks to the templates. If Twinkle is unable to deal with the manual warnings, then the user who uses Twinkle needs to review the talk page to make sure the level of warning is appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, but when we do use templated warnings (as most people do with new vandals, going up through the levels), then it really helps if they all work the same, as it gives new users an experience that has been developed over a long time and by consensus (and we should at least use the standard 4 levels - or equivalents in manual text). If individual editors all had their own sets of templates with their own chosen levels, we'd create chaos. Anyway, I'm off to bed now - let's see what others think -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just suggesting that *when we do* use templates, it makes sense if we use the standard ones rather than a personalized set using non-standard levels (especially when the "we" is a relatively inexperienced editor - relative newcomers should be discouraged from moving away from standardized procedures too soon). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but not the point. I tried to explain to him about how the uw-vandal templates tie into the vandal fighting programs of "Huggle", "Twinkle", etc. For example, if you use a standardized template, then it will signal the anti-vandal programs to template at the next level up, if there is repetitive vandalizing going on. At LEVEL 5 (occurring within a very limited timeframe of an hour or so), that is when the user gets reported to WP:AIV for add'l help, intervention or blocking. So, if the standardized templates aren't used, then it only gives the vandal more time to do damage. The above template is only going to cause confusion, so it should be, at least, moved to the user's subpage. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or userfy. I do not believe there is any policy that requires the use of the standard warning templates. Nothing prevents RCPs from adding entirely personalized messages. These templates are just reflect Ezekiel personalization. It would be good to include comments recognized by Huggle and other tools, but that can be addressed separately. Userfied templates are still usable, although awkwardly: "{{subst:User:Ezekiel63745/ezuw-vandalism1}}". An advantage of userfication is that the templates are less likly to be caught up in a later cleanup process. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is solved; We just have to move each and every template to my sub-user pages. Am I right? Ezekiel! Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'. 23:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not solved. We have to wait until the discussion is finished and see what the consensus says - please be patient. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user has requested to move these to his subpages, as per his talk page. I will fulfill that request. It does not need to be hashed out here, because it will no longer be in TEMPLATE namespace, so the argument for/against TFD will be a moot point. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough, but I really do think that nobody should be inventing level 5 warnings when the standard 4 levels have been carefully worked out and agreed by consensus. There is stuff all over the place talking about the 4 levels, and giving people level 5 warnings is only going to cause confusion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great, I'm working on it right now. BTW, level 5 doesn't exist, because a vandal edit after a level 4 (final warning) triggers it to list the username at WP:AIV. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished moving the old templates to his user pages, and I templated the old templates for user-requested deletion. End of story, I hope!!--Funandtrvl (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox drive-in theater

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox drive-in theater (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on two articles. {{Infobox theatre}} would do instead. WOSlinker (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Wikileaks

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikileaks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No article transclusions and doesn't link to a proper external page. —Half Price 13:38, 26 October 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Archimedes, Watch Out!

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. (WP:CSD#G8) -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archimedes, Watch Out! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An infobox that links to nothing. There is no article at Archimedes, Watch Out! (CSD A7), and the only other link is external. [flaminglawyer] 07:06, 26 October 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Other use

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Other use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It has the same functionality with {{About}} apart from the fact it uses named parameters. Named parameters are rather unusual for DABlinks. "About" does the same job and it's better coded and well-established with more than 70k transclusions. Magioladitis (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging by adding named parameters to About? I just think this will mess up stuff. An example of simplification.-- Magioladitis (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Chris, that due to the low transclusion count it isn't worth the effort to perform a formal merge. If there is strong desire for named parameters, such discussion can take place on the talk page for {{about}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 5 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Disamb1

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Redirect I realize that there is some consensus for refactoring the template, but a redirect is functionally equivalent. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disamb1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, I'm replacing it now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:10, 26 October 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_26&oldid=1142563099"