Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 31

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 30 September 1 >

August 31

Template:Infobox cultural fest

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) 00:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox cultural fest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If none of the many festival articles feel it's worthy of inclusion, neither do I. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:46, 5 September 2013 (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:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MOS-TM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MOS-TW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These talk page templates both fall afoul of CSD #

Bradley-and/or-Chelsea Manning article and its talk page, leading to lengthy disruption of BLP articles with an impact on the subject that can be far beyond that of an editor using pronouns that have not received official clearance beforehand. In the interest of allowing reasonable debate about things that are reasonably debated, and in the interest of minimizing disruption on article talk pages including BLP talk pages, these templates should be deleted. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I recognize the disputes around transgendered persons can run hot at times, but I think these templates are reasonable requests for respecting the wishes of such persons. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: however much my interpretation of Wikipedia policy and basic human decency agrees with this, sadly, it's clear that this does not conform to the community's view. Sceptre (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Transphobia is all too common and accepted as normal on Wikipedia. This nomination comes on the heels of returning the Chelsea Manning article to her former name, against her wishes and common sense. Rather than help ensure this does't happen again we have an effort the actually educate interested readers about transgender issues. And provide links to relevant discussions and guidelines. The arguments are really about an issue with some of the wording - or at least I hope that's all they mean. The template is a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The template was edit-warred off the Manning article during discussion, if it had been left in place there's a reasonable chance the discussion results would have adhered the respecting the gender identity of a living person. Additionally the argument that the template asserts one must think a certain way is of course mistaken. As is the assumption that one must only express one way of thinking or be reported "to the authorities," instead it states "If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the
    WP:BLPN," which are both sensible places to get support. The talkpage had to be cut off from new/unregistered editors because the personal attacks and transphobic remarks were untenable. Clearly the template is needed, that fact is somewhat lamentable but as long as we have some guidance for editors there is no reason to delete it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"What this template does is advocate for a single side of a societal debate, and it also casts aspersions on those who may hold an alternate point-of-view." That alone is not a good reason to reject a policy, especially when the opposing side often has less than rational motivations for their wording. I'm not calling anyone specifically out, but I feel that these templates provide an important guard against outright prejudiced edits like switching an article on a trans woman to male pronouns. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not rejecting a policy though, I am rejecting a guideline; time and time again MOS:IDENTITY has been mis-cited as policy during these discussions. If these templates are furthering and strengthening that misconception, then IMO you're giving even more weight to the
WP:CSD#T2 nomination rationale. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I would say these templates have nothing to do with the classification of Mos:ID but rather that stems from editors being misled/not placing emphasis on the rather fuzzy delineation between guidelines and policies on WP. So I don't follow that speedy deletion argument. I think these templates are absolutely necessary, regardless of which policy takes precedence. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually remarks referring to Chelsea by her former name and gender, like yours, are exactly why the template is needed. The talkpage had to be cut off from new/unregistered editors because the personal attacks and transphobic remarks were untenable. Clearly the template is needed, that fact is somewhat lamentable but as long as we have some guidance for editors there is no reason to delete it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These templates accurately summarize
    MOS:IDENTITY on the talk pages of the articles it affects, to cut down on the number of times editors change MOS-compliant articles to be non-compliant (and to cut back on the amount of time other editors must then spend bringing the articles back up to MOS standards) by editing and edit-warring over the pronouns. If one objects to the guideline that transgender individuals be referred to be the pronouns that accord with their expressed gender, it makes IMO little sense to oppose the existence of templates advertising this guideline; it would make more sense to address the guideline itself. This request for deletion could be perceived as an effort to make an end-run around that guideline, given that when it was discussed (in this still-ongoing discussion on WT:MOS), it was found to have the support of a majority of users. If you can convive a majority of the community to support changing MOS:IDENTITY, then you can come back here with a convincing CSD-T2 argument. -sche (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The point is that these templates actively prohibit the use of natural English-language pronouns in discussion. To that extent it is opposed to the guidelines on using English. If you say "But you should use the other pronouns", well, the point is that people debate whether that is true, and templates like this hurt the debate. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No; the templates don't prohibit anything: the Manual of Style "prohibits"/"advises against" (depending on who you talk to) certain things (e.g. the use of m-dashes in terms like "Franco-Prussian war", the use of "she" as a reference to a trans man in an article about him, etc), and the templates advise editors about some of those guidelines. If you want to change the MOS, change the MOS; the templates are merely accurate summaries of the MOS. -sche (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact that this template is needed is sad. But it is needed. It is not disruptive in any way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reword if needed. Before Manning case, the template had nothing wrong it its usage. The intention of the template is to explain users why a trans wo/man is called "s/he" when s/he born a wo/man, and viceversa (in other words to avoid these kind of edits based upon the subject of the page or the topic itself) See some !votes at Manning RM, rather than be neutral comments in the topic ("Until the name is legally changed by the courts, the legal name is the one on the birth certificate", "Bradley Manning is what he is known by to most people", "Bradley is still his name and he is still a he until he changes both his name and undergoes the necessary treatments to become a woman", etc.) they are written as if they were posted in Conservapedia (e.g.): "He is a woman only in his own head, and the collective imagination of the radical left", "Biologically he is a man and will die a man", "Has everybody opposed to this moved forgotten that he is a criminal???", "Bradley was clearly in a state of psychosis when he decided he was Chelsea, so MOS:IDENTITY is irrelevant. He didn't know what he was saying", etc. The problem is not the template itself, the problems are biased opinions (whichever, liberal or conservative) taken to extreme points, and people believing their POV is to be known and followed by every other person. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly true that some comments in the Manning discussion were quite needlessly rude toward Manning. I don't support such rudeness and I have not made this nomination to encourage rudeness. The templates seriously overreach, beyond merely prohibiting rudeness, to an active prohibition on the natural expression of certain opinions about article content. That is why I made this nomination. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an entirely reasonable request. We would not brook the use of a talk page for a biographical article about a Jewish person as a forum for discussing someone's opinion that Jews are responsible for the
    9/11 terrorist attacks
    . Similarly, the talk page for a biographical article about a transgender person should never be used as a forum for discussing someone's opinion that transgender people aren't real. It's an inappropriate use of the talk page. This does not proscribe discussion about what pronoun to use or what to title the article.
  • Saying "Chelsea Manning isn't a woman and will never be a woman" is neither constructive nor acceptable in modern society. That would literally be a violation of
    the Biographies of Living Persons policy as an unwarranted personal attack on a biographical subject. A person's self-identified gender identity is not a subject for debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have no strong feelings about the inclusion of that sentence. I'd keep it until someone presents an actual argument for its removal. I don't find Knowledgekid87's argument to be an actual argument: the sentence is indeed not derived from MOS:IDENTITY, but it is derived from the page which it links to, namely WP:NOTAFORUM. That policy says "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article". And for the same reason that the template {{
Notaforum}} to all pages that use MOS-TW (though that would be an option). -sche (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
We've already started some discussion on that topic. But if we don't reach a conclusion on removal/rephrasing of that sentence, I will default to a delete vote on the template as a whole. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it could or would be used to bully the community into accepting the view that the subject is, in fact, a trans man or trans woman when that question is at issue: e.g. "the template says he or she is a trans man or trans woman therefore the debate is over." There may be no dispute that the subject self-identifies as trans, but if there is absolutely no objective evidence of that or any source usage consistent with that it remains debatable whether the subject is, in fact, trans as opposed to retaining the gender of birth and making unsupported claims to having "transitioned." It is not transphobic to request more objective evidence that the claimed transitioning is completed or at least well underway. That debate should be allowed.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For a few days, I thought that this template was going to survive Tfd. Since yesterday evening (I live in the Eastern Time Zone of the United States, for clarification on when this was for me) I've picked up a lot of evidence that this template won't. Georgia guy (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why does this direct questions to fhe LGBT project instead of the admin boards, or even the MOS boards? If there is a syle issue, or a violation of some sorts, aren't those the preferred venues?Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it you refer to the sentence beginning "If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted". That links to
    WT:LGBT is the noticeboard of a project with perhaps more knowledge that any other in transgender issues. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2013 (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:GCC

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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:34, 8 September 2013 (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:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

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) 01:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but remove links to country articles - similar to not putting film navboxes on actors' articles, we should not clutter country articles with international organisation navboxes. Instead, each country article should ensure it contains a clear link to each organisation's article.
    Having said that, it would be nice to see a link to the discussion(s) referred to by the nominator. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. There is a long list of related discussions in yesterday's log.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether you remove the template from country articles or not, does not mean that the country links should disappear from the template itself. If you're navigating topics of the OECD, then the member countries are topics of the OECD, which you might want to read. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. 4 very short articles, 1 is an obvious WIP. List them under See also. —
    Lfdder (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Useful for recognizing the members and navigating between their articles. Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this template is not just a set of links to nations, it contains other articles as well -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Dimadick, and leave the links in. Potentially useful links are not clutter. Bazonka (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2013 (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:Mercosur

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) 01:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mercosur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2013 (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:Caribbean Community (CARICOM)

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) 01:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Caribbean Community (CARICOM) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2013 (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:Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2013 (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:Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2013 (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:Andean Community of Nations

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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:45, 9 September 2013 (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:Union of South American Nations topics

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Union of South American Nations topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2013 (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:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:44, 9 September 2013 (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:Southern African Development Community

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southern African Development Community (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The proposal is not about deleting the navbox, but about restricting it to links about the organisation (e.g. Southern African Customs Union, Common Monetary Area) and removing it from all country-level articles (Angola, Botswana etc), where they serve little purpose other than to clutter the lower portion of the page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure about this one... — This, that and the other (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is Useful for recognizing the members and navigating between their articles. Dimadick (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Dimadick, and leave the links in. Potentially useful links are not clutter. Bazonka (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2013 (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:Hoax

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) 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hoax (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Okay, so looking at the arguments of the last TFD. The nominator presented a point I agree with:

This template has no practical applications. If an article is believed to be based mostly or entirely on a hoax, it's usually nominated for deletion.

To which I added:

I check this template regularly in transclusions, and either it's a drive-by tagging with no obvious hoaxery in sight (for instance, I saw no misinformation in Lock Up (American band)), or something so patently wrong that it should've just gone to AFD in the first place.

Counterarguments were that it is useful in citing possible hoaxes. But as I said, they come up so rarely anymore, due to the low number of transclusions I see of this template on any given day. I follow this template often to see when it gets transcluded, and it's almost never on more than one or two articles at a time.

My arguments that "I would think that letting a hoax sit around, even with a tag, would do more damage. Because in that case, the misinformation is still around to be seen, instead of being shot down more quickly by AFD or removal." was countered with "And what about if a long-term contributor is being investigated for possible fabulism?" After I argued that " If it is a hoax, it'll be gone in a week and the visibility of the template will be minimal at best. And when was the last time we had a serial hoaxer?", to which the best response was "but but but, there could be a serial hoaxer about!" with no evidence to prove it.

There is also the problem that this template never seems to instigate any discussion. As I said with Lock Up (American band), there was no discussion in sight, nor anything that in any way resembled a hoax. The only current transclusion is on DXAJ, which is currently prod-tagged with "Hoax station" — and that's all it needs. It doesn't need a second template repeating the same.

In short: Tagging a possible hoax seems counterintuitive. If something is a hoax, then it's far easier to take it to deletion. Just slapping on a tag saying "this might be a hoax" is nothing but counterproductive template creep. If something is very obvious, then it can be speedied in a heartbeat. If only part of an article is hoax, then cut that part out. If there are suspicions that it might be a hoax, just send it to PROD or AFD, so it can be deleted, instead of sitting around and creating potential problems. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep not everyone is well versed in creating deletion nominations. It is better to tag an article as a hoax and get a more knowledgeable user to nominate it, than to leave one as it. Beside that, having hoax material does not mean that everything on the article is bad, it may be salvageable, so "deletion is not a substitution for cleanup". Reduction of major portions of articles gets the bots/editpatroller loving, meaning that some users will be automatically reverted by them because of massive chunks of articles going missing and get vandalism warnings. IF people choose to not go through the drama of getting rid of vandalism warnings, they may choose to not fix problems at all. Having this tag allows other users to know there's a problem with the article, and access various processes to fix it. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having hoax material does not mean that everything on the article is bad, it may be salvageable, so 'deletion is not a substitution for cleanup'." Then why not just remove the material you think is a hoax without tagging it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I explained it. Reduction of major portions of articles gets the bots/editpatroller loving attentions, meaning that some users will be automatically reverted by them because of massive chunks of articles going missing and get vandalism warnings. This is even more of a headache when they introduce
    WP:FLOW, since you can no longer ask the person who posted the warnings to remove a mistaken one, and have to pester administrators to do it. Ofcourse, many people who post warnings by mistake don't remove them and say "do it yourself" anyways, which also gets the attention of editpatrollers, who revert it, so you end up at WP:AN asking for an admin to remove mistaken warnings from your talk page. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If it goes to AFD, then what's the point of having a second tag on, when you can just go to the AFD and see that the AFDer has likely said something to the effect of "likely hoax"? Most hoaxes are caught on sight, so tagging them is redundant. Jaded (Band), to name just one example, could've just gone straight to AFD without the redundant template-bombing. If it's likely to be deleted, why template-bomb it in the first place? Also, did you not see my statements and proof that the template is prone to drive-by tagging? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:48, 7 September 2013 (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:Nothanks-sd-NPF

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) 01:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nothanks-sd-NPF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, and {{nothanks-sd}} was merged per this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2013 (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) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (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:Db-banned-notice-NPF

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) 01:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-banned-notice-NPF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

S 14:06, 21 August 2013 (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) 01:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per This, that.
    talk) 01:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Temporarily striking !vote to reconsider per discussion below.
talk) 01:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Ironholds makes a valid point. Instead of deleting the template, we should consider changing the wording of the message and linking it to relevant policy. As it stands right now, "The article you started has been tagged because it was created in violation of a ban," seems too shallow a notice for a user who has violated a block or ban. {{
talk) 01:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:BOLDly added a link to the policy in the template - I've also explicitly noted, in the message, that "Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately", which I think is likely to be more effective a disincentive than a mention in the policy itself (which, as said, is down a link). Ironholds (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Good idea. I've also added a link to
S 14:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Michaelzeng7: that'd be a keep, then, I assume? Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Redirect to {{
S 15:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Except, again, redirecting is not necessarily going to work because PageTriage expects to pass certain parameters along, and...well, let's see where we are, here. The normal templates: we know they don't work, it's as simple as that. They singularly fail to draw a user's attention and a lot of the time the message doesn't even get read; there was some research done into this. As a response to that research, the WMF had a team create some new templates that lacked the failures of the existing ones, and A/B test them - the newly-created templates consistently came out better. The same team then wrote these ones.
Now: I disagree with people on various things, be it inclusionism versus deletionism, the BLP policy or...a dozen other things under the sun. But when people can speak with some authority or expertise I tend to listen to them. Right now we've got you saying the template isn't harsh enough, me saying it's harsh enough, and I'd argue both of our opinions are irrelevant: the fact of the matter is that it's quite probably more effective a template, according to people who know what they're talking about in this domain, than what you're proposing replacing it with. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if only occasionally useful we may as well have this as part of the interface. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.
    talk) 23:34, 8 September 2013 (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:Arbëreshë Settlements and Notable Individuals

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 rename, removing the notable people. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arbëreshë Settlements and Notable Individuals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

should be split into separate templates, too broad of a scope if you check the "notable people" section of Arbëreshë people. Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would just remove the 'notable people' part, it's not the kind of grouping that can be made into a navbox as the potential scope is enormous.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the 'notable people' part. These kind of articles are better left for categories. Templates could be expanded indefinitely as more and more bio articles are included. Dimadick (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2013 (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:JTA Skyway Nav

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) 00:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JTA Skyway Nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer navigates the stations which have been converted to redirects to the main Jacksonville Skyway article. Sw2nd (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No longer necessary since most of the the stations have been merged into the main article. If that changes the template can be recreated.--Cúchullain t/c 17:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although it was stupid to merge all the stations into the main article. You might as well do this with every single mass transit system in the country. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes this now overloads the main article. This was done after this Talk:Jacksonville Skyway#Individual station articles, and no involved editors seemed to object. Sw2nd (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2013 (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/2013_August_31&oldid=1140406931"