Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 26

< April 25	April 27 >

April 26

Template:Members of FIMA

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 ১৪২২^{Bengali 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 ১৪২২^{Bengali 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)

Delete as there aren't a whole lot of articles for this navbox to navigate between. Tavix | Talk 20:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I said above. 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]

Delete - This navbox is almost exclusively unlinked text; the reason why navboxes exist is to provide links to existing content, not to provide a road map of future articles that may or may not ever be written. We can argue about what percentage of red links is acceptable, but this navbox ain't even close. Delete with extreme prejudice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer1 and
talk) 17:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, but no objection to userfying, since the articles should eventually be created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 27 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

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]

Delete per nom,
WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:05, 30 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

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]

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.

talk) 21:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge as redundant. Only several parameters to be merged (which, as both templates use {{Infobox}}, would be trivial). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the important parameters per above. Hajme 11:38, 22 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]

Question: Three of us support merging; and no-one has objected, Why was this relisted, rather than closed as merge? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- probably because you didn't tag {{Infobox train}} for merger. Frietjes (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Funny; I don't see that mentioned in the relisting. But then, I didn't nominate for merging, I nominated one template for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - We'll be merging parameters, so the conversion to a merge discussion appears to be reasonable.
      talk) 19:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Merge per nom; some of the missing parameters can also be used for trains.
talk) 18:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Alakzi. FreightXPress (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above. Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question, why do they need to be merged? Is {{
Infobox tram}} in the way of something? How I see it, it'll simply cause confusion, as after all, trams aren't trains and the fact that they both need rails is often the only resemblance. PPP (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge Parameters are duplicated, so this is redundant. I do not think the argument "trams aren't trains" particularly matters, the
trams article itself says that "the differences between the various modes of rail transportation are often indistinct." Mamyles (talk) 16:25, 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:Lake Charles, Louisiana

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]

delete, the articles are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 22:08, 29 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

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)

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]
- I have now saved the content to
  Trimarans}}). Smartskaft (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I feel this is a fair illustration of the point I make below; ie. now you have 6 pages instead of less than 1 ... and the content is far less readable. prat (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it's not, it's a fair illustration of that the amount of content doesn't fit to be in an navbox. Smartskaft (talk) 08:31, 29 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]

I note that the length is also very similar to Sailing vessels and rigs. prat (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that another template exists is not a reason for keeping one, see
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In fact, there is also a major difference between the two, where the scope of Sailing vessels and rigs is clear (types of sailing vessels and rigs) while the nominated ones list everything (concepts, types and individual vessels, sailing and motor) about their topic. This is simply not helpful for the reader, but would be in a list or an article on the history of multihulls. Smartskaft (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Actually, 'vessels and rigs' is even more vague than Trimarans or Multihulls, which specifically limits to at least a subset thereof. prat (talk) 05:44, 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) 20:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

convert to a list article and category per above (too wide in scope). Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 10 May 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

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]

Keep since it doesn't seem as though these templates are doing any harm, just like most, if not all, of the templates in Category:Image with comment templates. Steel1943 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The "harm" is that it is being used to encourage voting instead of discussing. --B (talk) 12:06, 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 {{
  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.
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]

@Daniel Case: I do hope you realize these have existed since 2008... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

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
  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
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). Neutrality^talk 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
  ]
  - 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. Neutrality^talk 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]
- In what way do discussions conceivably benefit? Neutrality^talk 04:55, 22 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
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
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

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)

talk) 01:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The relevant Wikiproject

talk) 12:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

keep, its his producer role, and the consensus are more than five years old. Christian75 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the consensus has always been that actor filmography template should be deleted, director templates should be kept and writer/producer templates had no consensus. If we are to begin deleting writer/producer templates a discussion should be held at
WP:WAWARD) 20:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notable film producer with multiple articles to navigate. The consensus is outdated. Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's not every film he's been in, just produced. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. There is currently a discussion underway at
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]

Apart from the nom, this seems to be a unanimous "Keep". Why was it relisted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Most likely because of the ongoing RFC for consensus regarding these types of navboxes. --
  talk) 08:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep - No reason is even given to explain why it should be deleted.
YO 😜 07:22, 9 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:Scott Rudin

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)

talk) 01:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The relevant Wikiproject

talk) 11:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Support deletion per nom and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been no consensus anywhere that writer/producer templates should be deleted. There has been consensus that actor filmography templates should be deleted and director navboxes should be kept. There has been no consensus on writer/producer templates. I have never seen editor/composer/cinematographer templates and such, but would be apt to delete them. I would likely support writer/producer templates.--
WP:WAWARD) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notable producer with multiple films to navigate. No reason to delete. Dimadick (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Tony the Tiger. I don't think all producers and writers need a navbox, but for those that have significant activity the navbox can be useful to readers. Rlendog (talk) 13:22, 23 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. --

talk) 15:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note to closing admin. There is currently a discussion underway at
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.
YO 😜 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

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)

talk) 01:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The relevant Wikiproject

talk) 10:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Support deletion per nom and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been no consensus anywhere that writer/producer templates should be deleted. There has been consensus that actor filmography templates should be deleted and director navboxes should be kept. There has been no consensus on writer/producer templates. I have never seen editor/composer/cinematographer templates and such, but would be apt to delete them. I would likely support writer/producer templates.--
WP:WAWARD) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notable producer with multiple films to navigate. No reason to delete. Dimadick (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That producer has a lot of notable credits and it should be kept. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tony LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. There is currently a discussion underway at
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 already stated above.
YO 😜 10:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per reasons already stated above. —
Talk | contribs) 04:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above notable person and enough articles to justify this being useful to a reader.Blethering Scot 22:04, 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:Buck Henry

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)

talk) 01:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The relevant Wikiproject

talk) 10:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Support deletion per nom and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable screenwriter with multiple films to navigate. No reason to delete. Dimadick (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. There is currently a discussion underway at
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 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

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)

talk) 01:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The relevant Wikiproject

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.--
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... --

talk) 10:18, 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]

Support deletion per nom and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAWARD) 08:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't know where the consensus discussion is, but from

talk) 10:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:WAWARD) 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Firstly,

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

WP:WAWARD) 08:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:WAWARD) 05:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete No matter how vast a producer's work may be, if we had navboxes for everyone with an extensive body of work we'd run into major
WP:TEMPLATECREEP. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notable producer with multiple films to navigate. No reason to delete. Dimadick (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zeke. Actor and director navboxes are fine, but producer navboxes are a step too far for me. I don't support the use of any producer navboxes. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not convinced in the first place that a wikiproject view necessarily drives issues of this sort, nor that the discussion encompassed this specifically, nor that these would be anything other than helpful. With all due respect. It's perfectly fine, that being said, for (as stated in the first sentence pointed to) the wikiproject to decide to itself not support the navbox. The phrase "unusable" seems inapplicable, though used in the second sentence, and it seems someone is over-reaching. Epeefleche (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. There is currently a discussion underway at
talk) 15:35, 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) 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
^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

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)

talk) 01:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

The relevant Wikiproject

talk) 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep that consensus is more in regards to actors filmography, not production (ie directors, screenwriters) filmography. I think this navbox is acceptable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 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 (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]

Support deletion per nom and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable screenwriters with multiple films to navigate. No reason to delete. Dimadick (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. There is currently a discussion underway at
talk) 15:35, 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) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a useful template and there is no consensus that this type of template should be deleted.--
WP:WAWARD) 01:35, 30 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]

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

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
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
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.
talk) 15:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as divisive and otherwise useless. In addition, templates with no utility should not be kept in templatespace; this isn't anybody's playground.
talk) 14:56, 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.
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. ~
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]
Thanking people is not private, you can see the
talk) 20:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

We have {{support}} instead -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:47, 29 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". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 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
]

Strong keep, and {{trout}} to the nom. A bit more "social interaction" would go a long way towards improving the collaboration of this project. (note: Andy and I don't always agree. :)). — Ched : ? 11:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep all at worst these are harmless, and while I I don't use them myself they serve a purpose for those people that do while causing no problems for anyone else. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for tradition. I never use them myself, but would miss some on my talk archives, put there by people I LIKE, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep handy and useful. Also put a one-year moratorium on raising this at AfD again! Montanabw ^(talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I am not sure what the nominator means by these 2 templates I'm nominating are a clear example of social media. They are templates that convey the opinion of the person using they are no more intrusive than {{done}}. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "like" is a simple and clear way of indicating agreement or support for a post. Not appropriate in article space, but useful in talk page discussion and on the reference desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They're annoying, and
WP:NOTFACEBOOK. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Useful for discussions. Honestly, at this point the deletion nominations are more disruptive than the templates ever were. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I happen to Like them, and Dislike having to waste time rehashing the same old arguments over and over. Next thing you know, they'll want to get rid of {{smiley}} too. . Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - OK, I admit that NOTFACEBOOK doesn't apply, though NOTFORUM seems to apply. By the way, there is seem to be a lot of ILIKEIT and ITSUSEFUL arguments in the votes. There is even one that says they should be kept just because its on a talk page archive. Dunno guys, but maybe this should be relisted. --
talk) 00:08, 3 May 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.
YO 😜 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

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]
@
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
David Levy 19:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
socking. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Actual deficiencies in some of the templates' wording can be addressed through normal editing. There's no need to redirect the entire set indiscriminately. —
David Levy 19:33, 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
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 {{
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

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 {{
talk) 12:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I am perfectly fine with these templates' deletions. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 12:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hajme 04:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. --
talk) 20:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 12:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 12:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This series of templates are for a different purpose than the {{
BITEy than {{Uw-ew}}. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@
ToonLucas22: Why was this relisted? It should have been closed as "delete". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nobody had taken action yet, so I relisted. --
talk) 16:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
User:ToonLucas22, you may find this of interest. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I originally thought to delete these, but after knowing they exist, have actually used one. These can be useful, but are just not linked from anywhere. Hard to find. Mamyles (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The way this was relisted broke the links between the pages in question and this discussion, which can't be the way it's supposed to work. If one follows the this template's entry link from one of the template pages, such as Template:Uw-restore1, one is taken to a discussion page where there is no mention whatsoever of the proposed deletion. Worldbruce (talk) 17:26, 2 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_26&oldid=1138533843"