Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 19 May 21 >

May 20

[edit]

Template:Red Vox

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox for band – all the links in it are red links for articles yet to be created. Article for the band has already been rejected once at AfC, so it could be a while before this navbox is needed, if ever. If it reaches that stage, it can be recreated, but it's simply redundant at present. Richard3120 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Ref name =Courtney

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_7#Template:Ref_name=Hoehn basically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Indianapolis Colts 2020 draft navbox

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 May 27. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Uw-ewsoft

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These templates were deleted following a prior TfD on 7 May 2020. The outcome of that TfD was then appealed to deletion review on 11 May 2020, which decided to relist the templates for further discussion here at TfD. Mz7 (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As a disclaimer, I am the original author of the template. The template is widely used, which came to light after it was deleted and only then was its deletion noticed by editors using the template. The initial deletion rationale was that Edit warring is too serious to warrant "softening" the issue. However, through the lens of WP:BITE there should be a template that explains the rationale behind 3RR without the stilted wording that, in my experience, causes some editors to tune out for whatever reason. Vandalism is also "too serious" yet there are 5 levels of vandalism templates, for good reason. In fact, most "problematic user" template have a version that is toned down in severity and accusation in light of WP:BITE and WP:AGF, but 3RR did not until this template was created. The template gets a lot of use and was included in WP:Twinkle until its deletion this month. Unless there has been a shift in general consensus that such templates should not have a softer wording for newer users who may not even be aware that there is an issue, I don't think the template should be removed. - Aoidh (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note, in the original discussion it was assumed that the template had not been used much, however because it is a template that is typically (and should be) substituted, the template's presence on pages would not be very high. Galobtter (talk · contribs) noted in the deletion review that it has been used ~4000 times, by searching for the verbiage used and where that shows up on talk pages. I'm not sure how accurate a metric that it since the wording has changed slightly, but even with that ~4000 number, the template does see quite a bit of usage. - Aoidh (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Aoidh, for tracking usage of a substituted template, a Z number template may be used. Won't help now, just for future reference. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful and harmless. Disk space is cheap. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I discovered this warning had been AFDed/deleted after I tried to use ew-soft (with Twinkle) to avoid biting a newbie/IP with only one edit. There should be at least 2 levels of this warning, and I'd even support graduated warnings from Level 1 to 4. Edit warring is a very serious issue, but a one-size-fits all warning isn't a good idea. I'm not sure why Edit warring and 3RR warnings are separate, but that is a different issue best discussed elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template is less WP:BITEy for warning new editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was looking for these templates earlier, and I'm shocked to see they were recently deleted. I witnessed just this morning a brand-new anonymous contributor being handed the "tough" version of the edit war warning. It was the only thing on the contributor's talk page, and it was marked with a big red warning icon. Definitely BITE-y. The new editor stopped promptly, but I'm sure the warning would have sufficed without the glaring red symbol and strict language. Having a "light" version of the edit war template, as well as the 3RR template is very useful for explaining the rules of the site to new contributors without spooking them too much. --ElKabong888 (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Aoidh. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Are the participants of the original discussion aware of this one? It's odd that none of them have participated to this point. Should they be pinged? - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they seem to have been aware of the Deletion review so that is an open question... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Endorse." What's to say? The comments are basically, "I use this, so we should keep it." No one has actually discussed the contents of the templates, how they are used, when one or the other should be used, etc. Nobody here is interested. That's why no one here was watching the template to begin with, and why few people commented at the original TfD. Better to wait for this rubbish "do-over" to end. Then we can have a serious discussion on the template talk page, in which nobody here will probably participate, and make consensus changes, which I'm sure one of you will then revert because you "weren't aware of the conversation". --Bsherr (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Great idea! While you're at it, why not merge all the graduated warnings into one template for each topic? Why should the Vandalism warning have 5 different warnings? That's just a big waste. Vandalism is a serious issue, and you shouldn't go easy on anyone, especially newcomers. Better yet, replace all warnings with one single, although inevitably massive, warning template. - BilCat (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilCat: Some of us are trying to do serious work here. I'd say you can make all the sarcastic remarks you like after your name is on this list. You only make my point that this isn't a serious discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you're the one who's not taking this discussion seriously. You're initial comments were full of disparaging snarkiness, and I certainly don't take them, or you, seriously. - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, my initial comments were made at a TfD initiated a nearly a month ago. I'm still waiting for a substantive response. I'm embarrassed by this discussion, and you have the nerve to wonder why none of the original participants are here, and then when you're told why, you resort to sarcasm. This isn't a real discussion. It's shameful. --Bsherr (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But just so it won't be said I didn't try, I wouldn't say the message ought to be soft or hard, but I think I single template can accomplish a balanced delivery. The user warnings are divided into single warning templates and multilevel templates. I don't especially see the reason to have a unique two-level template for edit warring. We only prescribe two-level templates for username issues. My concern is not that these templates are too soft, but that the "hard" templates are too hard. I would suggest creating single-level templates that fall in the middle, like they are supposed to, because I assume that "hard" cases will immediately go the the noticeboard anyway. But if that is inadequate, I think we ought to establish a standard three-level warning scheme, because I do think there needs to be a middle ground between the "soft" and "hard" templates. But I don't expect anyone to actually respond to this because it's not condensed to "keep" or "delete", so please have your vote, and then anyone who seriously wants to improve these templates can join me at WT:UTM, where BilCat has made 14 posts to my 195. --Bsherr (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the constant snarkiness? And please give up the peacockery about how many edits you've made to blah-blah page. It's irrelevant. A user with one edit may have a good idea that's worth listening to, while the person with the most edits on Wikipedia, whoever that is, sometimes may not.
    Now to your point. I've absolutely no issue with a 3-level warning system for edit warring, and supported more than 2 levels in my initial comments here, but which you've dismissed as "condensed to 'keep' or 'delete'". And to be honest, that doesn't make me eager to get into any more discussions with you, which I hope isn't why you're doing it. And please remember: While warnings play an important role in managing Wikipedia's contributors, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia. No one reads Wikipedia just to see the warnings. - BilCat (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:AGF (in respect, especially, to new comers, who might not be aware of the multitude of policies) is not just some random policy, it's essential to WP (see WP:5P4) and there's absolutely no harm with having less bity versions of warnings templates... (which can be already bity enough just because, you know, they're boilerplate templates which can be somewhat imprecise) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. I can totally understand why a new user might break the 3RR rule without malicious intent due to simple ignorance of policies, and plastering their talk page with a big red octagon would probably confusult them. @MusikAnimal: any chance we could see this reimplemented in Twinkle? Passengerpigeon (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep seriously? What happened to WP:AGF and WP:DNBTN? We have softer versions of templates because it gives newcomers information without looking scary and all. The last thing we want is a new user to be notified of edit warring and be driven away. Aasim 10:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The others can be a bit BITE-y, and they don't do harm. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_20&oldid=959178236"