Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< July 21 July 23 >

July 22

edit

Template:Source needs translation

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. These should be manually reviewed to determine whether another translation tag would be appropriate. ~ Rob13Talk 00:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this in 2016 Munich shootings and can't see the point of it. The template documentation doesn't help and so, as a cleanup tag, this doesn't seem actionable. Note that copyright considerations would prevent us from actually translating recent sources. Andrew D. (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2016 (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:WikiProject Fascism

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. ~ Rob13Talk 00:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to keep this template for this subproject of another project. It's been inactive since 2012. One problem is that the class parameter does not pass along (just fascism-importance one) so it has to be restored to the original politics template to work. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2016 (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:Blocked user

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 keep (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legitimate need for this template. If any user tries to make an edit to a blocked user's talk page, they are automatically presented with a very prominent red banner which states "This user is currently blocked" along with the most recent block log entry for the user. The same red banner is automatically presented when a blocked user's contributions are viewed. Additionally, there is definitely a badge-of-shame aura to this template (potentially constitutes harassment/gravedancing for the blocked user); a similar concern prompted the redesign of Template:Banned user and caused Template:BannedMeansBanned to be deleted at this TfD. For now, I can understand the informative nature of {{Sockpuppet}} and {{Banned user}}, but it seems that there is no scenario where a template like this would be absolutely necessary to inform the community that a user is blocked, especially given the potential badge-of-shame aspect of the template. Mz7 (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now but see about converting existing uses to {{Sock}} and {{IPsock}}, which appears to be what most are currently used for. I'd rather do those conversions first (which would need to be done anyway as part of deleting) and then re-evaluate what's left to see if there's a real need for this. It's difficult at the moment to wade through the sockpuppetry stuff to find any non-sock usage of this template. I have a feeling I'll wind up at delete (as will most people), but it seems sensible to get a better idea of what these are currently used for before going ahead with a "final" decision. Thoughts on this, Mz7? ~ Rob13Talk 04:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BU Rob13. I seem to have the opposite problem: it's difficult for me to wade through all the tags for non-sockpuppetry to find the ones where there is a clear sock master and {{sock}} would be better. I just randomly spot-checked six or so of the transclusions, though. I wouldn't mind doing those conversions first as long as it would be a practical task to do. Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards keep for now per Rob, but I don't have much working knowledge of the sock templates, so I'm hesitant to !vote on the practical side, but some work to that end would help us better understand use cases —PC-XT+ 01:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I use this template myself on very rare occasions. It does not display in bright and flashing colors, celebrating a user's block. It is in fact a very subdued template, directly indicating a block exists, but with no intent to shame. I don't see it as "shaming" in any away. Of course, opinions may vary on this point, but that is my opinion. Safiel (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, of course, but I think the potential for shame comes more from how the template is used, rather than the template itself. A user page is typically a place to describe who you are and why want to contribute here. {{Blocked user}} generally requires blanking the entire user page to make way for it, and this seems equivalent to disregarding everything that the blocked user did to actually improve Wikipedia. Not every blocked user edited in bad-faith, and this template alone does a very poor job of communicating a user's original intentions. And even for users who were here in bad faith, one can easily discover that they are blocked when one attempts to edit their talk page or when one views their contributions. Under what such rare occasions would it truly be necessary to apply this template? Mz7 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2016 (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:SEC Football Legends navbox

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) 23:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already too large for useful navigation and getting larger every year. One player from each team is added per year. This is not a defining characteristic for most of these players, so editors are left with two choices: give in to navbox cruft or don't transclude it on certain players' pages. The former is laughable (imagine placing this on Peyton Manning!) and the latter is against the guideline at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. ~ Rob13Talk 02:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2016 (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:STATS FCS Coach of the Year

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) Omni Flames (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No useful navigation; premature. ~ Rob13Talk 02:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNOW, will support recreate at this rate in 2018.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2016 (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:Rudy Award (collegiate)

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) Omni Flames (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No useful navigation. Only two links. ~ Rob13Talk 02:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would winners of this award satisfy GNG.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@UCO2009bluejay: Not by virtue of the award, no. This award is basically a character/courage/good guy type award, so it doesn't fit the major national award required for #1 of WP:NCOLLATH. ~ Rob13Talk 01:43, 24 July 2016 (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/2016_July_22&oldid=1138532887"