Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9

edit

Template:Monarchs of Brazil

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 2020 June 17. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2020 (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:Distressing article

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate talk page banner. This was originally on Talk:Timeline of the far future and was later copied to Template: space and transcluded onto a handful of others. But none of the uses are particularly warranted. I suggest outright deletion and removal rather than subst:ing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see why this is needed. Some people do tend to find certain wikipedia articles distressing, and complain about it in the talk. Wikipedia isn't a forum, so this can be an issue, so that's why it's important to use this template on talk pages. ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have multiple talk page banners warning people that talk pages aren't a forum. We don't need this one too. People also like to use talk pages to say that the boys in their favorite band are just the dreamiest or to offer their own theories about the JFK assassination, but we don't craft a different notice for each type of reason people might want to use a talk page inappropriately. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of that. However, this is a different type of talk page not a forum warning. we do need this template because it is used to mark articles that stand out due to it being distressing/hard to read, so as I mentioned above, people may complain to tone it down. This is be used to remind them not to do that. ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW as a page editor there have been few if any talk-page complaints on Timeline of the far future nor Global catastrophic risk nor Human extinction nor similar pages, at least in recent years; no objections to deletion from me. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see how this can be useful, but I also see how it violates the spirit (if not the letter) of NPOV by placing the adder's attitude of what constitutes a "depressing/disturbing" article onto the talkpage (a la spoiler templates, albeit in the talkpage). Lots of articles from a variety of disciplines and topics can fit that category, but this is only transcluded on 4 talkpages, all of which are about the future. (Oddly enough, the original instance on the Timeline of the Far Future talkpage is not this template [and has a link to Asimov's The Last Question as an "antidote"].) I have no opinion on what should be done, whether this should be deleted or its use expanded, but the status quo is suboptimal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @John M Wolfson: To clarify, that article transcluded the template when I made this nomiation. At some point after, Serendipodous apparently restored it, again in violation of WP:COPYVIOEL, which I had removed from the template for that reason specifically. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, my comment still stands. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{censor}} the other template is more widely used, better phrased and seems to serve the same purpose. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a few reasons. The NPOV concern raised above is one - "distressing" is a pretty broad term. I don't find any of the articles this is used on to be particularly distressing and there's an appearance of undue weight in putting this on the talk page for Timeline of the far future and not, say, Child abuse or The Holocaust. It would of course be impractical to put this on every article that could potentially disturb someone. The topics addressed by {{Censor}} are comparatively well defined (i.e. nudity, profanity, images of gore and death). Another issue is that the template is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - I looked through the histories of the associated talk pages and saw very little off-topic discussion. Finally I don't think merging this with {{Censor}} is a good idea because the templates address different issues - that template is meant to stop people from removing graphic/controversial content while this one is supposedly meant to stop people from complaining that the article is depressing on the talk page. Spicy (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2020 (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:Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa

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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems overkill for one article when the TOC is doing a great job providing in-article navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2020 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the page, WP:NLT, nowhere on the page does it say the warn the user who has made the threat. Interstellarity (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2020 (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:AFC submission/draft/HD preload

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 2020 June 16. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2020 (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).

Number templates

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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unused, and they contain only numbers TheImaCow (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2020 (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:Infantes of Spain by marriage

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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are all the entries unlinked, but the majority of these individuals were not given the title Infante, and the ones who were are already listed at Template:Infantes of Spain.2601:241:301:4360:5DCB:E3A7:CCB3:585F (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2020 (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/2020_June_9&oldid=963065261"