Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 11 May 13 >

May 12 edit

Template:Oklahoma City Dodgers roster 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 14:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of a minor league roster is not a defining characteristic that needs an nav box. Also players tend to move up and down through a minor league system at a rather quick pace throughout the season meaning that this box will often be out of date and inaccurate. Spanneraol (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All of the other minor league roster navboxes should be deleted, too. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:50, 12 May 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:Manhunt International 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) ~ RobTalk 14:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All pages formerly in this template have been deleted or redirected except for 2013 which will be deleted shortly. Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Navigation template with nothing left to navigate to. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 May 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:Government block and others 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 all. Regardless of the reasons for their creation, the overwhelming majority of opinions are that they are unnecessary. I see no issues with starting a discussion about how and when to use such IP block templates (and if they should be recreated), but at this point in time there seems to be consensus not to have them. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and will never have a significant use as, unlike schools, these organisations rarely result in situations where the-by-far-most of the edits coming from their IPs will be vandalism. Also created to make a point. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PCHS-NJROTC: the reason is clearly in the nomination: ".. will never have a significant use as, unlike schools, these organisations rarely result in situations where the-by-far-most of the edits coming from their IPs will be vandalism." If you have a school-IP, you will, on average, see significant more vandalism coming from that IP, then when you have a, say, corporate IP. It is the nature of the organisation behind the IP. And you can refute it whatever you want, but I have school-based IPs in my block-list from which NO constructive edits are coming, at all. If you can show me, say, corporate IPs where that is the same you may have a case (and then the case has to be that that happens often enough). It is, unfortunately, a plain fact that many schools (and I guess mainly primary and secondary education) where this is more common.I went through some logs, I see even a university-based hit). And I dare even predict that a higher percentage of vandalism is coming from school-based IPs than from 'domestic' IPs (and a lower percentage from corporate, church, etc. IPs than from domestic). To give another example: I hope you understand that school-IP-based edits are the reason that some of 'mainstream' porn- and shock-sites are blacklisted, not because of owners (or SEOs or anyone) spamming them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying really hard not to point out the same facts over and over again, but I am going to say that right now I really feel like I just walked into a cult meeting trying to provide evidence that their flat earth theories are wrong. It's pretty telling when I discovered a company I just begun part time employment with (which doesn't hire anybody under 18) has a six month anonblock on it. Since all vandalism comes from schools, that had to have really been against the odds. Also, if school editors are nothing but vandals and need special recognition that other IP categories don't, explain User:TJH2018, User:Maddiekate, User:Ryūkotsusei, User:Rio de oro, myself, and the countless other young editors we have. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day. 21:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that company IPs do not get blocked, sometimes for lengthy times. It is nice that you here nicely not tell what the reason of the anonblock was .. nor did I exclude that there are not companies with only over-18s which do not have a persistent vandal operating under them. Without the IP, there is nothing much what I can tell on your specific example. And also, again, this template is not saying that all school editors are vandals, the template is not saying that young editors are vandals. The template is saying that, based on behaviour of the editors using said IP, all editors coming from that IP are vandals. If in years worth of edits coming from that (school-based) IP there are zero constructive edits (I have a good handful of IPs like that on my list), then I am not going to just leave it unblocked because one time there may be a good edit coming from the IP. Without reason for the block you are talking about, nor seeing which edits precipitated the block (which I am not asking you to share), I cannot judge on the one example you give. However, based on the reason for the block and the edits that precipitated the block you may want to draw your own conclusions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's your reason. Sure looks like school vandalism doesn't it? Until you look at the talk page. None of what you said has anything to do with whether or not these new templates are useful or not, though. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day. 20:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PCHS-NJROTC that edit certainly looks childish. But I do think that what went on there is of a different nature. I see some serious BLP violations coming from the IP, and a high percentage of vandalism-like edits - but also what appear to be serious edits. My guess would be that this is a rather freely accessible computer or network (free WiFi by any chance, where everyone can connect?). The block-lengths there seem a bit long (the edit is not in line with the previous vandalism). And by the way, your reversal of argument invalidates it: that there are non-school-IPs where there is school-like vandalism does not mean that we should not tag schools where there is only school-like vandalism. Kids do spend time at home or 'around', having access to internet on devices, and will also do childish vandalism outside of school - however, some edits coming from school IPs are only vandalism. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a wi-fi hotspot, it's a corporate firewall. I'm a new employee of that company (not acting on official capacity in posting this) and found the "anonblock" when I tried to make a test edit to WP:SAND from a computer in the back (because I sometimes forget there's a "contributions" button in the top right corner now to see what IP is accessing WP...). There is no wi-fi in the AutoZone stores I have seen, and if there are some somewhere else with wi-fi, they more than likely pipe that through a different IP. The public does NOT have access to the network, so unless it was an employee's kid, that was an adult who posted the childish edit. I have half a notion to report the vandalism to the "shrink" hotline (employees vandalizing when they should be working costs the company money). At the moment, I am not arguing against the tagging of schools but rather in favor of the tagging of other IPs like we tag schools; we shouldn't tag one and not the other. There's just no legitimate reason to tag one and not the other. These templates have the same arguments for and against as the school templates (other than arguments coming from people screaming school IPs are satanic and enterprise IPs are angelic, which is BS). By the way, I've seen the same childish nonsense from Hospital Corporation of America, and I know for a fact HCA doesn't pipe anything with public access through the same IPs as the corporate web traffic (and before anybody brings up teenaged candy stripers, the kids generally don't have access to the corporate terminals). I've seen serious edits come from schools before too, plenty of times actually. I think what causes these "vandalism only" school IPs is that, historically, we we would have cases where some idiot pops up who keeps coming back for more, keeping the IP continuously blocked so no one can constructively edit, and I'm referring to the days of when we blocked schools for an hour or a day rather than a week, month, or year. They would rack up quite the block log doing that and the IP indefinitely carries the stigma of "persistent vandalism" long after the vandal has graduated, dropped out, moved away, etc. Not every school has that problem, and that's why there's a fair number of school IPs that do have serious edits in their edit history. But now, sysops drop one month or one year blocks like it's nothing when they see the IP belongs to a school, and say it's due to "persistent vandalism." PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day. 02:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PCHS-NJROTC now you are talking admin behaviour, and are saying that (some) admins are too lightly blocking for long times if it is a school. If it is a school, that belongs to the IP, then if there are significant number of constructive edits coming from that IP then for sure it should not be blocked for a lengthy period. If there is nothing, really nothing, but vandalism coming from an IP then there is no reason to not restrict its use for long times. I am not here to play whack-a-mole with such IPs. If there is an editor there that wants to be constructive, they can a) arrange an account, or b) make sure that they enforce the school board to take action and have the teachers (or the students' parents) do what they are supposed to do: teach the kids how to behave on internet).
The scenarios you show are still not statistically convincing - the number of constructive edits coming from a hospital over the number of non-constructive edits by a few school kids that run around there is going to be high, whereas for some schools (where obviously the number of students is way higher) the number of constructive edits go down to 0. And if the kids on that school have been taught good internet practice and good manners, the number of constructive edits from that school will also be higher, and there will not be lengthy schoolblocks on the IP. Again, you are trying to turn an argument around but are making it invalid in that way: we do not say that there is no childish vandalism from, say, corporate IPs, we do not say that there are not schools where there are also constructive edits, what we say, and can show, is that there are many school IPs where there is nothing but childish vandalism - up to a level where those IPs do deserve a special tag. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet none of this gives any reason not to have the separate templates, in fact, stating that corporate and government IPs behave differently than schools is good reason to keep the new templates. The amount of good edits coming from HCA, AutoZone, the US Military, various banks, etc is irrelevant here because the IPs do get blocked (sometimes for extended periods) regardless, so there is potential use for the templates. As for whether or not the IPs should or should not be blocked like schools, now you're talking admin behavior. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day. 03:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, the use of these is minimal in comparison to schools. There are many schools where these templates are of use, and where the vandalism is because they are schools (school-kid-type vandalism only). With companies, or churches/temples, etc., that is much less and often more specifically targeted - the number of IPs I have blocked (from schools) where there was nothing but school-kid-type-vandalism is rather large in comparison with company IPs where there is only/mainly school-kid-type-vandalism - it is generally POV-pushing, non-adherence to NPOV, plain corporate spam (we do have 'spam-only blocks', which is a similar type as 'school-kid-vandalism blocks'!), block evasions, and many other violations (up to COPYVIOs or BLP violations). The number of company-IPs that get lengthy blocks because ALL of the edits from their IPs are school-type-vandalism is nearing zero (for your IP, it would be 'this IP was used for serious BLP violations and school-kid-type vandalism', not only school-kid-type vandalism as we are talking with the schools). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And who ever said these templates are only for kid type vandalism? Did you read them? I don't even think I mentioned vandalism in the templates. I used the term abuse which is the term used in anonblock (which is what should be used, these cookie--cutter templates should not be for just vandalism). The purpose of these templates, including the school one and anonblock, is to provide information for those looking to constructively contribute on how to go about doing so, not to shake the cane at them like Cranky Kong for vandalizing. These new templates provide this information, just like the school template does. It also addresses paid editing, something anonblock does not. Just like anonblock does not address school projects. And I whole heartedly disagree that there will be minimal use, because I see corporate and government IPs blocked quite often. (And if workplace blocks are so uncommon, why is the guy in the little image in anonblock wearing a tie? Pretty clear what they intended to target, I just took it a step further and specified what I want to target.) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Growing tired of the bullshit day by day. 16:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. When nobody but the creator can see a use for something, it's generally a good sign it serves no useful purpose. It's a basic fact of Wikipedia that schools are qualitatively different to other institutions which generate large numbers of IP edits. I'm not even sure how the creator thinks an admin is expected to identify the IP of a church (or thinks any church with the possible exception of the Vatican is ever going to generate significant levels of IP editing). ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per PCHS-NJROTC. We shouldn't be deleting useable templates just because they are underused. I'm also a big fan of these, as this helps narrow the block down to the specifics, and not just a "block" in general. TJH2018talk 21:35, 16 May 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:Zavidovići municipality 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) ~ RobTalk 14:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unlinked. Serves no navigation purpose. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a nice and orderly way of listing localities, which, without the template, would flood the page. Carlotm (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't link to any articles. It serves no purpose! --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Flood which page? It's not used anywhere. for (;;) (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, and of no navigational use. for (;;) (talk) 07:10, 15 May 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:Ambassadors of Colombia 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 13:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as per WP:EXISTING . almost all red links LibStar (talk) 08:48, 12 May 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:Lifetime 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 Redirect to {{L}}. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only six transclusions. Redundant to {{DEFAULTSORT}} and the births/deaths categories. The history of this template is weird. A TfD for this template was closed as delete in early 2014, but this was apparently never implemented. Keeping in mind that consensus can change, I've decided re-nominating is the best course of action. ~ RobTalk 06:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per earlier discussion. The substitute-only equivalent {{L}} is hugely useful for editors making quick improvements to an article - I use it a lot while stub-sorting, to add birth and death dates / "Living people" category, and DEFAULTSORT, for a minimum of typing - but the original "Lifetime" should have been deleted per outcome of that earlier TfD. PamD 06:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or redirect to L). I use this (always substed) all the time when creating new biographies. I find it much easier to remember "lifetime" than "L". And what's the harm in having another name for the same template? It should not be left un-substed, of course, but that's a different issue that doesn't call for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be satisfied with a redirect to {{L}}. ~ RobTalk 08:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge – Only one of the templates should be kept, I can't see what's the difference between them. The remaining template should be at the title {{Lifetime}} with {{L}} serving as a shortcut. (Transclusion count is not a good argument here, since it's not supposed to be transcluded, and if it is, a bot should fix it eventually.) nyuszika7h (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect with/to Template:L as essentially a duplicate template. --Izno (talk) 11:28, 19 May 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:Pilotwings series 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) ~ RobTalk 07:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NENAN. Short series with no evident prospects for expansion; even series article seems redundant and might be better suited to a disambig page. Member articles can be amended to make reference to one another where such references do not already exist. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:47, 12 May 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:Test2del/doc 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; deleted by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc page of a redirected template. I redirected the template itself to {{Uw-delete2}} per very very old TfD discussion that was closed, but not acted upon. This probably almost qualifies for G6 uncontroversial deletion in my opinion. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it qualifies for G8, I tagged it with that, let's see. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:11, 14 May 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_May_12&oldid=1140162430"