Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 31

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 30 June 1 >

May 31

edit

Template:CCTBM

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no obvious parent article, and no readily apparent need. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Roompot–Charles riders

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) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Team is defunct, so the template is no longer required. Craig(talk) 14:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Uw-nothereblock

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 speedy keep. On the record: no consensus has emerged for this change, nor seems likely to, at this rate. (non-admin closure) ——Serial # 22:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not identify a policy-based block reason. WP:NOTHERE is a supplemental page, and as such "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community".

WP:NOTHERE details some policy and guideline violations. However, most of these have their own specific block templates which should be used instead. This one is way too broad and unspecific, and because it encourages poor block practice, it should be deleted. In many cases, Template:Uw-deoablock would be the substitute, as it covers trolling, disruption or harassment. --Pudeo (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because of so many cases where it's not a single policy/guideline alone repeatedly violated, but some of several. Two commons patterns are minor vandalism that morphs into some trolling or personal attacks, and substantial but not universal incompetance regarding citing sources or faithfully writing what they support with occasional copyvio. There's usually one "last straw" that leads to an admin hitting the block button but that alone is nowhere near the whole reason, and it's not major enough to go to a dramah-board (such that "per ANI..." could be the block reason). DMacks (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ideally so, but there also are examples of first-instance indefinite "cowboy" NOTHERE blocks (for instance, where to draw the line with WP:AGF with new-ish users that cause disruption). Basically the usage of this template has broadened a lot. It would be beneficial if all blocks were explained with policy to the letter, which also helps with appeals. It is interesting how these templates affect de facto blocking policy, as for instance, there is no block template for "No personal attacks" - only harassment. My take is that this template is too much of a catch-all slammer that is contributing to lazy blocking practice. --Pudeo (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then (as others below note) let's address those specific cases and potentially return this to its narrower scope if current individual practice isn't in line with what we want when we actually sit and think about it as a group. Sounds like you're trying a process of having the template tail wag the admin-behavior dog. DMacks (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It'd just be replaced with a generic WP:DE blocks, which like WP:NOTHERE is basically a catch all saying that there doesn't need to be a specific policy reference for a block if someone is causing issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Prussian Royal Family

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template has three major flaws, the first two of which are incorrigible.
a) It attributes princely titles to people who probably do not use them (e.g. the High Line architect Tatiana von Preussen) for reasons ranging from professional to legal or ideological. Because the vast majority of the people listed in the template are private citizens, meaning entirely obscure, it is impossible to verify whether they use the titles attributed to them by this template.
b) The template is meant to be a navbox ("a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles") yet it completely fails as such. Only 10 out of 70 people named in the template are linked; the rest are bare names.
c) There are no sources verifying the existence of more than half of the people mentioned in the template. Most of the people listed in it do not appear anywhere else on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: A) Wouldn't renaming to House of Hohenzollern be one way of dealing with that? B) and C) Only entries with verifiable sources should be included, if relevant. That's a template content discussion concern and not a template for discussion as far as I can understand. PPEMES (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PPEMES: Renaming the template would not affect how we name the people listed in it. Removing non-notable people would make the template misleadingly incomplete while retaining unlinked names defeats the purpose of navboxes. This sort of thing belongs in an article; a template is just not the place for it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedians should not be inventing royal titles for people. These individuals are not princes or princesses of any existent monarchy because the Prussian monarchy was abolished. The idea that this is somehow irrelevant is absurd. Also, there is no point in a navigation template filled with people who do not meet our notability requirement. Kahastok talk 17:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:AFC submission/draft/HD preload

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 June 9. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:User Status/Offline

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. czar 05:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Few people use it, and there are already All in one Template. The redirection it sets delete with CSD G15, except for the corresponding parent page and the redirection set on the parent page. (And delete Template:User Status/Busy, Template:User Status/Not Active) SecurityXP C 03:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityXP, wrong venue. Because this is technically a "userbox", it should be listed at WP:MFD instead. Aasim 10:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:User Status/Online

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. @SecurityXP, didn't you create these templates with your alt account? Can just request G7 for unused templates in the future. czar 05:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Few people use it, and there are already All in one Template. The redirection it sets delete with CSD G15, except for the corresponding parent page and the redirection set on the parent page. SecurityXP C 03:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Narendra Modi timeline

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 June 7. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_31&oldid=1138372613"