Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 26

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

April 26

edit

Template:Members of FIMA

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) 23:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Members of FIMA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one article of this WP:NAVBOX is on Wikipedia; which is even under AfD. First we create articles, then navigation boxes. Not the other way around.   শুভ নববর্ষ ১৪২২Bengali new year | nafSadh did say 19:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I regret to say that I disagree with the perspective and reason given here. The reasoning given does not establish that things cannot be done the other way round, OR that such a methodology violates Wikipedia policies. Neither has the information been challenged to be untrue, nor can it be said that Wikipedia is but a work in progress. A suggestion can be given to create more articles. Asking for a deletion is simply too much. ~Mohammad Hossain~ 03:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, which part of Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia -- you do not understand?   শুভ নববর্ষ ১৪২২Bengali new year | nafSadh did say 06:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of navboxes with redlinks in them. People create navboxes either before or after the relevant content is created. This also helps note which articles need to be made. If the grouping is useful, why not. See Template:Hospitals in Jordan as example. 103.7.250.251 (talk)
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) 22:23, 26 April 2015 (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:Cinemassacre Productions

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) 23:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cinemassacre Productions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Much of the content of this template has been deleted or is nominated for deletion. By the time it's all over, it will list one company, one actor, one show, one movie, and two related companies. Given the lack of content, the template seems completely pointless. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2015 (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) 22:07, 26 April 2015 (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 tram

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 merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox train (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox train}} - and the distinction is blurred, on some metro systems. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the tram infobox has some categories of information that are specific for trams and that are currently not used in the infobox train. Unless all of the categories, such as minimum curve, axleload, steep gradient, are implemented into the train infobox, the tram infobox cannot be called redundant. These are all information that are extremely relevant as regards the possibility of use of certain trams in given cities.
The distinction is somewhat blurred with some light rail systems, but not as regards tram vs. train per se. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the train infobox does not have the following parameters: articulations; assembly; class; designer; driven wheels/wheels driven; lowfloor; minimum curve; predecessor; steep gradient; and successor. The train infobox does have an axle load parameter. Alakzi (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2015 (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) 22:00, 26 April 2015 (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:Lake Charles, Louisiana

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) 23:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lake Charles, Louisiana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template has no likelihood of being used. It repeats the sections already on the article, and is useless on any other Wikipedia article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (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:Multihulls

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 convert into a list. The prevailing argument (for deletion) was that these navboxes are (a) too large and (b) have an overly broad a scope. A corollary - perhaps - of the latter was Dirtlaywer1's red link argument: to keep the red links would mean to keep a navbox that's unwieldy, but to remove them would be misleading, as the navbox purports to be a complete listing of multihulls (or trimarans). There's no consensus here for the creation of new, tighter multihull navboxes, but that can be examined at greater length at another venue. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multihulls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Trimarans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navboxes with too broad scope, it cannot list all multihulls or trimarans. Already very big. Smartskaft (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Both of these navboxes are extremely large with a high percentage of red links to nowhere. I would strongly urge that someone contemplate converting these navboxes to list articles and moving them to article space. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify per Dirtlawyer1 - if a navbox gets too big it's usually an indicator that it needs to be broken down, but this seems like an unnecessarily-broad class to base a navbox on and I don't think it could result in useful subdivisions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisit later: but for the love of wiki, please don't delete: I've spent a lot of time expanding these, though I did not originally create either of them. I believe the content is extremely valuable as the best on the web with regards to getting a snapshot of the evolution of modern multihulls. Changing the format to a list article will drastically reduce the communicative power of the content. If people see the size of the templates as a huge issue then I am happy to have someone convert them but cannot personally dedicate time at present owing to 'real life' commitments. Another option might be to split the catamarans out of the Multihulls template and have two, more manageable 'Catamarans' and 'Trimarans' navboxes. Still another option might be to ban boats that are not 'production' boats (ie. multiple boats produced of the same type) from the templates, which would shrink them considerably however would necessarily remove most of the interesting earlier entries ... so I'm not really for this treatment. Still another option would be to create decade or other temporally-based categories to reproduce the current grouping visible within the templates in the categories system, however this will lack utility in terms of overview and is likely to become ignored/unmaintained. Honestly, I don't think these navboxes are really such a big problem right now and are very informative, offering a concise overview of the subject at a glance. If they grow to much larger sizes then we could revisit the question later, which would be my recommended course of action at this point. However, as I'm the only one working on them I doubt this will happen as most of the low-hanging fruit / important stuff has already been covered. I would also question why, as the major recent contributor to both of these templates, I was not notified of this deletion discussion. prat (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2015 (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) 20:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have multiple categories (eg. Trimarans and Multihulls) though these do not only include boats themselves. My concern, which I feel remains very much valid, is that asking people to look at long lists destroys the context and structure of the information conveyed by the navboxes, which were created by someone else, discovered and found extremely useful by myself (actually searching for this sort of information), and have subsequently been significantly improved. A list or category would *not* be useful for conveying structured, temporal information about the limited number of modern multihull craft. We've basically listed the vast majority of them already, and it's an amazing, easily accessible resource. This is the whole point of why the navboxes have value. prat (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment does not even begin to address the problem of red links (i.e. linking non-existent articles) in this navbox. Navboxes exist to facilitate reader navigation among existing articles on related topics -- this navbox is more than half red links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's how you address that problem: pitch in! In the last few days I've found new sources to fill in the 1960s Trimarans (no red links left) and begin with 1950s (one left) and even a 1940s. It's thankless work but at least we can track it easily using the template. Do I see any assistance from anyone commenting here? No. If you'd take the time to look at the history, you'd see the number of red links has been steadily decreasing recently. prat (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is obligated to "pitch in" to save a navbox that has been created prematurely; see WP:TOOSOON. Create the articles first, then create a navbox for them. Frankly, however, when navboxes get this big, they usually work better as a list anyway. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and if any editor feels the need and has time to split, feel free to do so. These are useful, so deleting would go too far. The primary argument for turning these into a list is that they are too long. The best solution to that would be to split this into multiple templates. Mamyles (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mamyles: No, the primary argument for deleting these templates is not that they are too long, but that they include too many red links. Template:Multihulls includes something like 138 RED LINKS, well over half of all those topics listed. Navboxes are intended to be used for reader navigation among EXISTING closely related articles, not as a road map for the creation of future articles that may or may not ever be created. In a nutshell: create the articles first, then create a navbox for them. There are nearly countless TfD precedents supporting this fundamental idea. The opportunity to convert this navbox with 138 red links to a list article is lifeline to preserve the content. I suggest that the template creator grab it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirtlawyer1: Redlinks can easily be removed from a navbox, should any editor feel the need. Deleting a whole template would be an over-reaction to such a fixable problem. The redlink content will remain in the history, should the contributing editor wish to create a list based on it. Mamyles (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your solution, then implement it. That said, is this then an incomplete list? That problem can be a catch-22 scenario, but that is one of the problems with navboxes that are created before the articles are created for the listed subjects. It's a problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Dirtlawyer1, why don't you consider helping out adding the missing content? As pointed out, the red links that are left are disappearing quite rapidly anyway just with my recent rate of work (slowed at the moment due to travel). We all acknowledge the current situation is not perfect, but we're getting there. prat (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratyeka: I have about 3,500 articles on three separate watch lists for multiple American college sports, Olympic swimming, and universities, as well as infobox and navbox templates for use in athlete and sports team articles; I'm in the middle of coordinating five separate and very involved discussions for the redesign of infoboxes to be used on literally tens of thousands of sports and university articles; and I'm trying to clean up 1400 American, Australian, British and Canadian Olympic swimmer articles. That's in addition to being an active discussion participant at TfD and AfD for sports-related subjects as well as a half dozen WikiProjects. I think I'm already doing my part, and, frankly, perhaps more than I should.
So, how about we not create navboxes before we create the red-linked articles, and how about we not demand that other editors help create and build out articles for prematurely created navboxes? We apply these same guidelines and principles to the navboxes for association football/soccer, American football, baseball, basketball, cricket, golf, gymnastics, hockey, lacrosse, swimming, tennis, etc., and every other subject on Wikipedia. Sailing is not special, and does not get to have its own special exceptions, rules and guidelines.
Bottom line: When a majority of the navbox content are red links to non-existent articles, the template should not have been created. So, request that the template be userfied to your sandbox, and recreate it when most of the links are blue for existing content. Then you're playing by the same rules as everyone else. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2015 (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:Disagree & Template:Agree

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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disagree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Agree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I may have a poor imagination, but I cannot imagine a reason to use these template other than !voting. Despite the warning at the top of the template pages, every single instance I clicked on with "what links here" (and there were a whole blessed lot of them, so I may not have looked at a representative sample) was for !voting. B (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, the other possible times this template could be used should not be accounted for? Regardless of how this template is used, WP:NOTAVOTE exists and should be followed in discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are those "other possible times"? I looked through the existing uses of the template and could not find any that were for something other than voting. If you know of another possible use, please let me know. If there is some legitimate process where "agree" and "disagree" are needed as responses, then we could facilitate that with a process-specific template like {{RFPP}}, {{UND}}, or {{EP}}. (I don't know of any such process, but maybe there is one that you could point out.) --B (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not a "legitimate process", per say, but I could see someone putting this template in a comment chain to clarify their stance. Just because an editor agrees or disagree with the previous comment in their discussion chain doesn't necessarily mean that they agree or disagree with the initial proposal/question of the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the over 1000 uses of {{agree}} or over 500 of {{disagree}}, can you find some examples where the use is as you describe but does not constitute voting? The uses I have clicked on mostly seem to be something like this (arbitrary example): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Consulate General in Chennai. The template is doing nothing but introducing a !vote. Here is another similar one. Here is one where everyone got in on the fun and used the templates to !vote. The "approved use" (for lack of a better term) on Wikipedia for this kind of template is for processes where the colored icons let you quickly look through a list of nominations and discern whether you need to do something. If I'm looking at WP:RFPP, I can quickly see which requests have been handled so I can handle the ones that still need to be processed. I just can't conceive of a use of these two templates that would be that kind of "approved use" and not really just a voting template. --B (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "!voting"-restriction only applies to XfD, polling can be done in other discussions, such as at WikiProjects. (such as for polling about redesigning the look of a wikiproject) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though of course you are welcome to disagree with the English Wikipedia's longstanding consensus not to use !voting templates, neither the infobox on the template itself nor the listing at WP:DRPR says anything about XfD. These templates should not be used in any consensus-seeking discussion in a way that resembles !voting - whether the discussion is an XfD or otherwise. But they are pretty much exclusively used that way. --B (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per deletion of Template:Support / Template:Object / Template:Oppose and Template:SupportSection and Template:Iapprove and Template:Rfasupport and ... the support templates are created so often even have a perennial request section at DRV. Frietjes (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think I will ever understand the problem with using these. Look at the beginning of all of our votes, what did we do? We bolded our vote, and all these types of templates do is that with a picture. It is still expected you follow it with a reasoning. These are happily used on Commons (c:Template:Vote keep). But in respect to this, it can be used in non voting situations easily, and does no harm. I can't see any examples of where this template has caused harm... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason they are used on Commons is for multi-lingual support. The templates will automatically translate your !vote template into the reader's preferred language. We have no such need on the English Wikipedia because we're, well, the English Wikipedia. In any event, if you think the time has come to re-examine our processes and whether we should start permitting voting templates, that's fine - let's have that discussion. But as long as we're banning voting templates, we should delete these as they have no use but voting. --B (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary and divisive. Pictures speak louder than words; a big red minus certainly isn't gonna help move any argument along. Alakzi (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Completely harmless graphics that are only used in talk space. Don't like them? Don't use them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. A nice idea once, perhaps, but as we have demonstrated for years now we don't need them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6: Consensus can change. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ya I know about that, I was referring to your reason which said ...but as we have demonstrated for years now we don't need them. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6:If they were needed we'd be using them in this discussion. Besides, I think Alakzi's right when he says they can probably cause division and unnecessary escalation of rhetoric. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, I cant either see the problem with them, and consensus can change. I cant see the problem thats it used i voting discussion - its better and more visible than just "strong keep". Christian75 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason given for keeping these templates is that you disagree with the longstanding rule against voting templates on the English Wikipedia. While you are welcome to do so, I would suggest that there's a certain inconsistency in having these templates, but not templates for support, oppose, keep, delete, etc. The "agree" and "disagree" templates are being pigeonholed into discussions where "support", "oppose", "keep", "delete", etc, would make more sense. Example: where I became aware of the templates' existence was this FFD discussion. "Keep" would have been a better template to use here (if it existed), but instead this (less appropriate) template was used. Rather than keeping these two templates and disallowing all of the others, it would be better to have a discussion advertised at {{cent}} to see if there is a community opinion as to whether or not voting templates should be used. While you are obviously right that consensus can change, there needs to be an actual advertised discussion for that consensus, not just an obscure TFD for a template that few people are even aware exists in order to declare that consensus changed. --B (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTAVOTE is not policy; it's not even a guideline. In practise, Wikipedia has voting procedures of various kinds, such as the elections to arbcom, and having a range of useful symbols as graphical options is helpful. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:DRPR#Template:Support, they encourage voting rather than discussion aimed at the generation of consensus. Dalba 22 Farvardin 1394/ 12:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Agree" and "Disagree" are merely synonyms of "Support" and "Oppose"; thus, the nominated templates should share the same fate, especially since the perennial consensus uses the word "etc." to accommodate all synonyms. That said, these template haven't done a significant good either, thanks to their more specialized brothers like {{Ep}}. The alternative importScript('User:Ais523/votesymbols.js'); would suit the need of those who are too nostalgic to let it go.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is using wikitext to bolden words so difficult? It takes about as much effort as writing these templates in. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - I agree with Codename Lisa and Alakzi. No need to clutter talkspace and projectspace with unnecessary, ugly, and duplicative templates of this type. The large red "disagree" stamp is particularly objectionable. Also, I imagine these images unnecessarily slow down the download of pages (on mobile, for instance). Neutralitytalk 04:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A 20px image is less than .9kb of data, thus making as tiny of a difference in page load time as a few sentences. Please remember WP:SLOW, that editors shouldn't be concerning with page-load speeds unless there are obvious massive differences. So that is definetly not a reason for deletion, and with your rationale   Done,   Not done, and all the other inline icon templates (here if you're interested) should also be deleted? What about   Unnecessary or   No? If you take out one for this reason, what about the rest? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OSE. Do you have an argument for why they should be kept? Whatever drove you to !vote keep when you "don't understand the problem"? Alakzi (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if it's small, it's still a difference. In any case, as I explained above, these images are useless at best, and inhibit discussion and turn users off at the worst. Neutralitytalk 13:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done and not done have two really really important uses: (1) they are used by bots to determine that certain requests are processed and can be archived. (2) if you're an admin looking at one of the pages that uses those templates, you can quickly skim to see which requests still need to be processed. Agree and disagree have neither of those uses. --B (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. per all above. Page load is not an issue for a file of this size and with caching happening everywhere. Discussions do benefit from these templates as well. nafSadh did say 00:34, 19 April 2015 (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) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't use the templates themselves, but I've seen them used by others enough to think that they are enough a part of wiki-culture to keep them. I also disagree with the premise that !voting is always bad. We're basically !voting right now, even though we're making arguments to support our views. Using   Agree or   Disagree in a discussion doesn't prevent anybody from also making a good argument any more than using Keep or Delete does. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as per most of which has already been said above per the rationales of Dirtlawyer1, EoRdE6, Nafsadh. Harmless templates. Deletion only serves to limit options in creative input. More options good. Less options not as good. North America1000 22:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both I notice that everyone saying delete is putting it at the front of their statement, in bold, as a vote. Why do they do that? Because it's easy to read (and there's a nice widely-used script that adds icons to them that I'm sure many frequently involved in xfds use). Because it's the summary of their vote. However, I   Agree (lol, sorry, had to) that there are a lot of them, and they're all fairly redundant. I think most of them let you change the text to whatever in a param. I could probably support a redirect for a lot of them to one of the others for that reason. But none of this 'encourages voting' stuff, please. I would also add that a similar template,   No comment is commonly used by Checkusers at WP:SPI,   Done and   Not done (along with many others) are commonly used at request noticeboards of all kinds, so I have trouble seeing the consensus that these templates are all categorically bad. ― Padenton|✉   08:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here is an instance where the template was not used as a "vote" (the one that brought me to the discussion, in fact). The graphic is a visual aid, not a vote, but as bolding the word "keep"/"delete" is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are foreseeable cases where editors prefer to use agree/disagree over support/oppose, so this is not redundant. I acknowledge that these need additional arguments at the end to not be a !vote, but not including those would be an editor's fault, not the template's. Mamyles (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not always used as a "Vote". It easily shows what you think about a debate! Mhhossein (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both "Agree" doesn't seem to do any harm. I don't really use it to !vote, instead I usually use it to clearly state my position. Disagree probably does not have the negative side that you mentioned, or at least not to that extent. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Augmenting text with an icon is hardly new. (Replacing it would be bad.) The download time, even considering WP:SLOW, is not a great deal, and user agents will probably cache the images anyway. I'd be concerned if there were any WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues with these, but presumably that is not the case. All that being said, some fora seem to use icons (e.g. WT:DYK and others don't (e.g. WT:RFD) and a mix-and-match approach could be confusing where those with graphics are more prominent than those without. That's a problem for each forum to resolve, though. Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SimonTrew: I'm assuming this !vote was intended for a different discussion? If it was intended for this one, I have no idea what in the world you're talking about. The reason to delete these templates is that on the English Wikipedia, we don't use voting templates. It has nothing whatsoever to do with an accessibility issue or server rendering speed or any such thing. --B (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Useful templates that help making debates more easily readable. SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - both useful templates make debates more easily readable, as per SkywalkerPL. Qwertyxp2000 (talk - contributions) 05:28, 8 June 2015 (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:Brad Pitt

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 keep. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brad Pitt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2015 (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) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (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:Scott Rudin

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 no consensus. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scott Rudin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. The implication is that once we start having crew navboxes for anything other than directors, the articles will be more navbox than article. Some films can have 5-6 producers, 3-4 writers, composers, editors, cinematographers, etc, etc. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an argument when the producer has significant contribution, but significant activity just means they've produced a lot of films, which is actually more of an argument to delete, as it's likely more indiscrimnate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2015 (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) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasons above. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or failing that, restrict to just explicitly Scott Rudin-centric articles, not any film he ever touched. Navbox creep is real, and this plain isn't a useful navbox. It's reasonable a reader might want to, say, click over to other Quentin Tarantino movies; I find that highly doubtful for this unconnected, unorganized list. I'm not sure I agree with the principle that only directors can merit a navbox - I think that including the films {{Michael Bay}} only produced rather than directed is fine - but the name should be very well known. Rubin doesn't qualify IMHO. SnowFire (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful navbox. I agree that not all producers need a navbox, but this is appropriate given the large number of notable works here. I also agree that it could be better organized, but the solution is not to delete it. Mamyles (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable person and the navbox contains notable articles. yes it needs tidying but if there is enough notable article in the navbox, as is the case here then it is useful to readers.Blethering Scot 22:03, 23 May 2015 (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:Brian Grazer

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 no consensus. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brian Grazer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. The implication is that once we start having crew navboxes for anything other than directors, the articles will be more navbox than article. Some films can have 5-6 producers, 3-4 writers, composers, editors, cinematographers, etc, etc. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2015 (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) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (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:Buck Henry

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 no consensus. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buck Henry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. The implication is that once we start having crew navboxes for anything other than directors, the articles will be more navbox than article. Some films can have 5-6 producers, 3-4 writers, composers, editors, cinematographers, etc, etc. Once we remove the writing credits, only two films are left, which then falls foul of WP:NENAN. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2015 (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) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This looks to me like a useful navigational tool. It does not look like too much work to maintain. While the number of navboxes is a concern, it would be better addressed by guidelines from a wikiproject (like the RFC above) than arbitrarily nominating templates for deletion. Mamyles (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2015 (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:Damon Lindelof

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 no consensus. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Damon Lindelof (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be clear, the discussion that you point to advises against actor filmography templates (stating that they should be deleted) but implies director templates should not be deleted under this directive. The discussion does not make any statement about writer and/or producer templates. You seem to have decided on your own that writer and producer templates should be deleted without any supporting consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The implication is that once we start having navboxes for anything other than directors, the articles will be more navbox than article. Some films can have 5-6 producers, 3-4 writers, and if we allow these, it won't be long before people start to create navboxes for composers, editors, cinematographers, best boys and key grips... --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Nav boxes aren't really needed for _any_ circumstance and are just cludge taking up space on the page. However, it's accepted to have them for directors, I don't support them for any other entity. I actually don't even see the reason for them for directors. There is usually a filmography on their page which serves the same purpose. At least, in the case of any other profession (screen writer, score composer, producer, actor) a filmography should suffice within the article. Navboxes are intrusive and stacks of navboxes are aethetically unpleasing and redundant to the content of the article.65.35.237.210 (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template provides solid navitational aid.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 31 March 2015 (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) 05:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the consensus discussion is, but from Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates: "templates containing filmographies are not supported by this project. Such templates should be nominated for deletion as unusable. Note that filmography navbox templates for work by film directors are not covered by this consensus." Therefore, per this guideline, only director filmographies are acceptable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robsinden your short memory is a bit disingenuous. A few weeks ago, we had one of these discussions in which you pointed me to the section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates and its supporting discussion which was a discussion about actors templates versus directors templates. No other types of templates were discussed. I pointed this out. And you did not contest that fact then. Now, instead you are pretending to forget where that discussion was and pointing back to a short project statement that was written in the context of actors versus director templates and acting like you don't remember the context of the supporting discussion. There has been no consensus regarding producer templates just like there had been no discussion a few weeks ago when we last had this discussion. Now, you are conveniently presenting this section that was written in another context as if now its context has changed. There was never a consensus building discussion regarding producer/writer navboxes. Would you be willing to have one before you run around changing the world of navboxes for the film industry.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:AGF. I can only assume you're talking about this discussion? It seems I had a slightly softer approach to these crew navboxes then than I do now I've considered the consequences a little more! What I meant was that I don't know where the discussion regarding the wording is, and therefore I don't know whether producers, writers, etc were discussed at the time that wording was implemented. They may well have been. However, at face value, the wording is clear, and refers to all filmographies (it doesn't specify actors'), making one exception - directors. And let's face it, the intention is the same - to avoid navbox creep, something you if you would get if we allowed them for any member of a film crew, the same way we would if we allowed them for actors. If you consider auteur theory, it is generally accepted that the director is the "creator" of a film, and it makes sense that navboxes should be restricted to directors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. In a previous TFD, you pointed us to a discussion that served as the basis for the directive that you are now pointing us to. It was a 5 or 10 year old discussion that only considered actor and director template. The point is that if you want to begin wiping out producer templates, we should have a discussion on the matter because the directive was based on a discussion of actor vs. director templates. Would you like to have a discussion at WP:FILM, WP:TV or WP:FILMBIO?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robsinden where are you at? Since there has never been a discussion of whether producer template should exist (to my knowledge) and the directive that you keep pointing us to was based on actor vs. director templates, I continue to need to know whether you are willing to have a dialogue in an appropriate forum on the matter rather that a smattering of TFDs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:41, 13 April 2015 (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) 19:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This looks to me like a useful navigational tool. It does not look like too much work to maintain. While the number of navboxes is a concern, it would be better addressed by guidelines from a wikiproject (like the RFC above) than arbitrarily nominating templates for deletion. Mamyles (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful to readers for navigation.Blethering Scot 22:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having just came from the Tomorrowland (film) article, I noticed this template was nomjnated. Esp. if directors (he has been a producer and writer, which are similar) are not covered by the consensus reached in the WP, I think with the article's popularity that such a template would be useful. Buffaboy talk 03:02, 25 May 2015 (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:Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely

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 no consensus. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat the response I gave for another similar filmography navbox, the implication is that once we start having navboxes for anything other than directors (which is the only thing the project condones in the linked consensus), the articles will be more navbox than article. Some films can have 5-6 producers, 3-4 writers (Thor: The Dark World has 5, so imagine if they all had navboxes), and if we allow these, it won't be long before people start to create navboxes for composers, editors, cinematographers, best boys and key grips... --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2015 (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) 05:21, 7 April 2015 (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) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (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.

Like and Dislike

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 Keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Like (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dislike (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia is not social media, and these 2 templates I'm nominating are a clear example of social media. --TL22 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - By my reckoning, this is the SIXTH time these templates have been nominated for deletion in the past four years, with the previous outcomes being four "keeps" and one "no consensus." As previously discussed in most of those prior TfDs, WP:NOTFACEBOOK does not even mention templates, icons, etc., but expressly prohibits the use of Wikipedia for (1) personal web pages, (2) file storage areas, (3) dating services, and (2) memorials, each of which is explained and discussed at some length. Relying on WP:NOTFACEBOOK in this TfD is clearly misplaced, and the rationale has been rejected multiple times previously. These templates were never intended to be used in article space, and like many other "fun" elements from Wikipedia's formative years (e.g., barn stars, user boxes, service awards, etc.), there is ZERO harm in using such light-hearted elements in user and talk space. Don't like them? Don't use them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that may be true, and it may be harmless, but being harmless isn't a reason for keeping. Its not actually useful anyway, its just serving for voting wheter you like or dislike it, and Wikipedia is not about majority votes, its about consensus. --TL22 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and prior consensus has been to keep these templates. The problem with so many TfDs that are not based in actual policy or the guidelines, is that they are exactly nothing more than a "vote," because in the absence of a basis in policy or the guidelines, there is nothing else upon which to base the "consensus". Sorry, been there, done that. You say "it's not a vote"; I say "you don't like it," nothing more. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I see that you are a personal user of "user boxes". What purpose do they serve? Are they not similar to social media, in the same fashion as you suggest here? Perhaps we should have a discussion about whether all user boxes should be deleted, because they are harmless, serve no purpose in articlespace, and are used simply because some editors like them (while others do not). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User boxes in templatespace do generally serve a purpose, e.g. indicating an editor's knowledge of a foreign language or their user rights. Also, user boxes have no effect on discussions. Alakzi (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Alakzi, but I must disagree with you here. There is no evidence of this template being "divisive," except for the repeated attempts to delete it. There are ample precedents and plenty of evidence of the long acceptance of multiple varieties of templates in templatespace -- not used in articlespace -- including barn stars, user boxes, service awards, etc. This is a harmless bit of fun -- not everything in non-article space has to be "serious bidnez". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They fall under the banner of unhelpful iconography. It'd be impossible to present any substantial, concrete evidence as to their effect; personally, I do get rather annoyed and distracted by them. Regardless, the number of times these "like" buttons have been nominated for deletion ought to serve as an indicator. I disagree on littering templatespace with "harmless" banners, awards, and the like. Alakzi (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I created Template:Like in 2009. The idea was to express approval on a talk page without needing to comment otherwise than "like". At the time, Wikipedia had no "Thank" function as it does now. The reason I created Template:Like was to fill a need more or less the way the "Thank" function now does. I don't use Template:Like and I can't remember the last time I saw anyone use it on a talk page. Thus it seems not to matter whether it gets deleted now. — ¾-10 15:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have over 1750 combined transclusions which suggests to me that they are used. I'd be happy to run through and subst: them all and see if what and where the future use is, although I just saw a use on Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Accepted nominations by Buster7 which is why I'm leaning towards keep for now. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – These are useful and functional templates that provide options for editors. Deletion of them will only limit options, and won't serve to improve Wikipedia. Furthermore WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK is about Wikipedia pages, rather than simple graphics. Also keep as per the rationale of Dirtlawyer1. North America1000 18:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nom doesn't address arguments made in past attempts, and current rationale doesn't hold water. WP:Notsocial isn't meant to prevent people from expressing approval or disapproval on talk pages, which is what these templates are primarily used for. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I like the template and use it often enough. Its useful to display support to a comment or an action in a way that is visible to all not just a "thank" (which I also use often) which is only visible to the recepient. Unless I'm mistaken we are all humans and so we have a social side to our make-up. This isn't about mimicking social media but about displaying manners which is the lubricant between collaborators. A few more thank yous and likes and there may not be as much drama everywhere. Using the like or dislike template as a messaging tool is quick, simple and effective. Why should we take a tool out of the editors Toolbox; it doesn't make sense. Buster Seven Talk 18:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The NOTFACEBOOK policy is not related with the talk pages (where these templates are used) but with the articles content. In a similar way, Wikipedia is also WP:NOTFORUM but it has talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two templates are not going to turn Wikipedia into a social network. They're just a graphical way to say "nice" or "thank you". §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep two friendly user talk templates will do no harm. I have never seen them used in a way that is detrimental to Wikipedia so there is no good reason to delete. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These templates are intrusive, unnecessary and have poor accessibility "1750 combined transclusions" in six years, for a template of this type, reflects very low community takeup (equivalent to less than once per day). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete   Like   Dislike WP:NOTFACEBOOK -- Wikipedia is not a social club, and this applies to all pages, not just article pages. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:NOTFACEBOOK: it has nothing to do with this discussion, but it does prohibit the use of Wikipedia for four specifically identified activitities -- none of which has anything to do with a thumb's up icon. Please feel free to quote any provision of NOTFACEBOOK which you believe is applicable to this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:NOTFORUM: there's nothing there that applies to this discussion, either. NOTFORUM prohibits (1) advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment; (2) opinion pieces; (3) scandal mongering; (4) self-promotion; and (5) advertising, marketing or public relations. Each of those probibited activities is explained. There is no reasonable interpretation of NOTFORUM that prohibits this thumb's up icon's existence in template space or its use in user and talk space. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think ITSUSEFUL arguments are really that bad in a TfD. I think we are looking to keep templates based on their usefulness. ― Padenton|✉   08:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Move to Close - After 8 days of discussion, there is an 16–4 !vote majority to keep this template -- dangerously close to WP:SNOW territory for TfD discussions, which rarely attract more than 6 or 7 comments. The cited policy basis for this proposed deletion, WP:FACEBOOK, by its own terms does not apply. Moreover, this rationale has been posited and rejected several times before in the five previous TfDs held regarding this template; the five prior results yielded four "keep" outcomes, and one "no consensus" keep by default. From the present discussion, it's clear that previous consensus has not changed. Let's put this to bed, and move on to other things. Please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia might not be social media, but that's not where these are used (they're used by us editors on talk pages). So whatever you might think about the templates themselves, this would delete them for the wrong reason. CapnZapp (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As many have already said, it doesn't matter that this is not facebook. We are not here liking status updates of our friends' days/lives/memes, and I'm skeptical that either of these have ever been used in such a context on Wikipedia. (Law of large numbers be damned.) ― Padenton|✉   08:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I didn't even know these existed! Very useful for talk and other discussions, so long as they go with a comment and aren't used as stand-alone messages. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   keep   Like but   remove   Dislike as the latter is just the facebook button upside down and therefore copyvio. Also, I must say that it's remarkable for these templates to be nominated for deletion, while templates such as   Looks like a duck to me or   The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: are not. PPP (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Facebook's copyright application for their thumb's up icon remains stalled at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as it has been for something like two years, over a protest by TiVo, which apparently has a similar icon of its own. In any event, our "dislike" icon should be changed to match our "like" icon to avoid any potential future copyvio issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2015 (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.

Old Test Edit Warnings

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 keep Test, Test2, Test3, Test4, Test5, and Test5i, and redirect the rest. Feel free to renominate any here (or the redirects at RFD). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-test1}}
Template:Tests (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-test1}}
Template:Test intro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → Delete
Template:Test1a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-delete1}} (Already redirected)
Template:Test1article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-test1}}
Template:Test2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-test2}}
Template:Test2a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-delete2}}
Template:Test2article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-test2}}
Template:Test2del (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-delete2}}
Template:Test3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-test3}}
Template:Test3a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-delete3}}
Template:Test3article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-test3}}
Template:Test3ip (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-test3}}
Template:Test4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-vandalism4}}
Template:Test4alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-vandalism4}}
Template:Test4aalt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-delete4}}
Template:Test4article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-vandalism4}}
Template:Test4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-vandalism4im}}
Template:Test4im-alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-vandalism4im}}
Template:Test5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-block}} (Already redrected)
Template:Test5i (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-vblock}} (Use the indef=yes parameter)
Template:Test6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) → {{uw-vblock}} (Or delete as 5 serves this purpose already)

Propose redirecting to new templates. These templates have grown and spread into a uninteliable mess of random templates, most of which use odd language which goes against current guidelines. For example, the block notices don't inform blocked users about how to request an unblock, in fact they don;t even mention that it is possible. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 27#Old Spam Warnings. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Test, Test2, Test3, and Test4, neutral on the rest. I'd like to thank EoRdE6 to take the time crafting this nomination. Note prior discussions Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 17#Template:Test and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 3#Template:Test. My view hasn't changed since the last time around. I still use the older templates because I prefer the language. No one's confused by the existence of these templates and they do no harm. I'd like more explanation as to how these templates could possibly violate any guidelines, seeing as they simply provide boilerplate text. How does the project benefit from this action? Mackensen (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mackensen: The wording of some could violate guidelines and confuse new users. For example, {{Test6}} doesn't even mention unblock procedures . {{Test2}} makes absolutely no sense if yo read it, Such edits are considered vandalism and quickly undone. And things like {{Test4im-alt}} say Your recent vandalism has shown you to be intent on doing harm to Wikipedia... you will be reported to administrators which first sounds childish (intent to do harm to Wikipedia?) and then says you will be reported to admins, without explain what happens then, and no links to the blocking policy. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm agnostic on Test4im-alt and Test6 so I'm not sure why you're arguing with me about them. As for Test2, I find I can parse its meaning. The original wording did not include the clause " and quickly undone" and I would support its removal. Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the two previous discussions linked in Mackensen's message. Some of us prefer the old templates' style and continue to use them. Given that they aren't listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (which would confuse users seeking an appropriate template), their retention causes absolutely no harm.
    These are talk page messages, which needn't be uniform (unlike templates appearing in articles). No "guidelines" require the use of specific wording when conveying information via someone's talk page. Any editor who wanted to could store these templates' text on personal subpages and transclude them at will, but it's far more convenient to retain the longstanding locations (at which they've resided since long before the "uw" series was created). The requested action is a solution in search of a problem (and one that would cause problems for no good reason). —David Levy 19:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an insane number of templates, all doing essentially the same thing! Keep Test, Test2, Test3, and Test4, as they do appear to see some use; redirect or delete the others to the more modern and maintained equivalents, as proposed. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all but the blocking templates - the objection to the blocking templates (that they don't tell you how to request an unblock) seems perfectly reasonable and those should be redirected to the newer templates. The other templates have a legitimate use, though, for those who want their message to sound like it comes from a human. The uw templates all seem less user friendly and these test templates provide a reasonable alternative for users who desire to use them. --B (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are still in regular use and the content doesn't have any major issues. Nakon 00:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Test, Test2, Test3 and Test4 per This, that and the other; redirect the rest. Compromise is integral to a collaborative environment; surely, we can compromise on having two of each kind, but no more? Alakzi (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2015 (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) 19:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Test, Test2, Test3, and Test4. Also keep Test5i, which is the target of {{Uw-test5i}}, and sometimes absolutely priceless. The others are a bit obscure these days really and I'm like meh about them. However if someone wants to keep them let them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the TestXarticle templates to the uw-createX templates, TestXa, Test2del and Test4aalt to uw-deleteX, Test, TestX and Tests to uw-testX (except for Test4, Test4alt, Test4im and Test4im-alt which should be redirected to uw-vandalismX), Test6 to {{uw-vblock}}, Test5i to {{uw-indefblock}} and Delete Test3ip. The Test3ip template could be redirected to any of the uw-testX templates, but I can't decide to which. also redirect Test3ip to {{welcome-anon-unconstructive}}. Or maybe Keep all but Test4im-alt (due to blameful language) for legacy purposes. Changed my mind, legacy only applies to Wikipedia pages. --TL22 (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redriect per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all, except keep {{Test}}. I do not see any particular usefulness of the rest, and agree that blocking templates that fail to at least mention unblocking are particularly undesirable. Mamyles (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to say this discussion has gotten a bit stale. A bit confusing consensus here, but in my opinion it seems a few of the more obscure ones should be redirected or deleted, and the main ones should be kept, with maybe a few wording changes to keep up with current policies and a link to the unblocking policies. I'm going to look through them and see, but I'm thinking keeping the core ones (test-test 5) for you legacy people, then redirect the rest to a variety of updated UW templates. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:13, 28 May 2015 (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.

Uw-restore

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) 23:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-restore1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-restore2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-restore3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-restore4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unecessary and redundant combination of {{uw-ew}} and the uw-disruptive series. TL22 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it? Just a vote? --TL22 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These templates are not as useful, there is other template that would cover more advice and warning than these. Hajme 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but please always remember to put a reason on your vote. --TL22 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Seems that no one taken action yet, so I'm relisting this. --TL22 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TL22 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2015 (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/2015_April_26&oldid=1138533843"