Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 4 December 6 >

December 5[edit]

Template:Uw-dttr4im[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 no consensus. I am adding the {{humor}} template to it so that everyone may be satisfied. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 16:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this? Blocking someone for templating regulars, no matter how frequent it is, is completely outrageous. This isn't even an approved template anyway... Krett12 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seriously? The Note: This template can bootstrap itself into usefulness; I expect to get a CSD/TFD template on my talk page as a result of creating this page, and I can then use this template to complain about it. wasn't enough of a hint that this is a joke? ‑ Iridescent 22:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Loving the idea of "this isn't even an approved template", though. Who exactly do you think approves templates, the Wikipedia Board of Template Scrutineers?) ‑ Iridescent 22:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. I was able to use this template to warn the nominator, just as Floquenbeam predicted. Clearly, it's useful. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Templating the regulars is not a blockable offence. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator, because I'd prefer we not attempt to suck every single iota of enjoyment out of this place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't it work just as well userfied? NE Ent 23:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No; it's existence in the Official User Warning Schema(TM) is what makes it funny. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was pretty mean, so I'm not even going to say what I actually meant. Krett12 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krett12: Wait, what? Are you talking to me? I was mean? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you were. I don't think there is any "Wikipedia Board of Template Scruntineers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krett12 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at signatures again. I didn't say that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did say that, and stand by it. If you're going to make a claim as outlandish as the notion that there's such a thing as an "approved template", you need to provide some evidence to back it up, since the notion that any one user's work somehow needs to be "approved" by someone else* would go against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. ‑ Iridescent 20:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Except in a very few specialist use-cases such as new pages created by non-autopatrolled new users, or changes to the media-wiki interface.
  • Delete The reasons stated are inadequate. What makes someone established as a regular user? Why is this a 4im warning? Also, as far as I am aware, it isn't even a blockable, let alone warnable offense. Jab843 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator need not be concerned because it's a joke in the spirit of first make people laugh, and then make them think (or possibly the reverse). Per not bureaucracy rules do not have to be strictly obeyed at all times, and this template should be left alone for occasional use. Another point regarding the OP is that this template's existence has no bearing on WP:Blocking policy and it is indeed very unlikely that someone would be blocked for templating the regulars. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnuniq. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly a joke template and a very witty creation on the part of Floquenbeam. Once again today, Johnuniq puts it well. BethNaught (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Humor templates are OK, but they cannot pose as warning templates. Besides, what defines a "regular" Krett12 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WHIMSY. 28bytes (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a self-appointed permanent member of the Board of Template Scrutineers I hereby approve it. Thomas.W talk 19:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I will take WP:WHIMSY by 28bytes and win the $20,000 on Family Feud. Please keep. Please...I echo all the keeps. Fylbecatulous talk 19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This may mislead someone into believing that Wikipedia actually works on a hierarchy basis. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fybecatulous. //nepaxt 03:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Token delete before the snow keep. The problem with inside jokes is they're only funny to the insiders (if then). I don't care about the template per se, but when a new user makes an unnecessary but good faith effort to improve Wikipedia and gets mocked -- there obviously is a "Wikipedia Board of Template Scrutineers:" we're it right here and now -- and called an idiot over a stupid four year old template that's been essentially used only once, I care. The primary place where it is used appropriately because some [who?] may find it mildly amusing, would be User:DESiegel/Template_the_regulars#See_also. And with a little markup and a userfied template, {{Uw-dttr4im}}, it would look exactly the same on that page. NE Ent 09:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NE Ent, he's not a new user; to quote his first edit, which was itself well over a year ago, Hello. I've been a contributor for a while, I just keep losing accounts. New users don't just happen to stumble across four-year-old templates which aren't actually used on a single page. ‑ Iridescent 11:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have those categories for the benefit of people who do not possess a sense of humour. Perhaps Category:Humorous templates should also be created to help those poor souls? pablo 14:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the very least, if you insist on keeping this quite frankly weak attempt at humour, a {{humor}} template should be applied to it. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this just creates a clique and a caste system on Wikipedia. By definition, all users should be templatable. If they are not, then we are giving in to favoritism and building castes of users, discriminating against non-regulars. WP:BJAODN was deleted, I see no reason why this shouldn't be (or dumped into BJAODN as new entry and deleted). If kept, it will need a visible {{humor}} attached. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but should be referred to the Central Scrutinizer for ratification. pablo 14:05, 9 December 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).

Template:USA occupations[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 16:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful since the page it's dependent on has been deleted MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see links in this template that do not indicate a relation to "occupation". Debresser (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous naming; this could refer to jobs (occupations), places occupied by foreign powers inside the US (such as when the British burned Washington, or the Japanese took the Aleutians) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:18, 10 December 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).

Template:UFC facebook prelim header[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 16:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think this template is useful since it's for a Facebook page MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 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).

Template:Chicago Outfit[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. This template now has 8 transclusions. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 16:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

only used in one article. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes So are most of the templates for most crime families. What difference does it make for it? --Donovan Ellis (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Donovan Ellis, which other ones are used in only one article? I would like to nominate those as well. Frietjes (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes Idky you're doing this because either mine or the other crime family templates have violated any rules but its all the five families and some of the other crime families--Donovan Ellis (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Vic49 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC) The template should be added to the Chicago outfit members articles. Should be worked on some more.[reply]
  • Keep. This template could be listed in the major related pages, or perhaps split into a crime-families template, but it provides value as a navigation-page. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 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).

Template:Cvt[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 no consensus (with WP:NPASR). The delete !votes mainly had NOREASON (and incorrectly called it a fork), but only the creator wanted to keep it. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unused fork of {{convert}} which would fall under WP:T3 but I'm listing it here because the T3 tag from a year ago was removed. Jimp 11:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment irrelevant to the discussion itself, but I have removed the lvl-4 header these two templates were listed under because they are being treated as separate nominations. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary fork. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or redirect, although calling it a fork isn't really accurate. it's a frontend. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by author. I created {{cvt}} five years ago to simplify the coding of abbreviated conversions in thousands of pages, as making typical conversions twice as short in perhaps 70%-80% of conversions, such as using {{cvt|4|km}} rather than the verbose "{{convert|4|km |abbr=on}}". In reality, {cvt} should be in use more than 2x the number of {convert} template calls, but some people have been systematically removing the use of {cvt} to thwart its use and frustrate the users who want conversions to be less-wordy in pages. Over the past 5 years, {cvt} has been used hundreds of times and should be used in more than one million articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this isn't a fork, it's a wrapper -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To see a typical example of {cvt} inside a list, see page "List of rivers of Taiwan" (permalink) with 61 instances of {cvt} to show "km" for "kilometers" rather than 61 of "{convert|...|abbr=on}". Some users really dislike wordy syntax in parameters, and that is why {cvt} was created in 2010 as a short-form template, especially for use in lists or tables. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:02, 5 December 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).

Template:Yazdânism[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete, as there is no opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yazdanism and even more this template try to conceal the fact that Kurdish scholar Mehrdad Izady's theory of a unique pre-Islamic Kurdish religion which he calls "Yazdanism" isn't much more than a theory, a theory that has been heavily disputed by other recognized experts of the field and that therefore even may be considered a fringe theory. This is supported by the fact that Yazdânism is not even mentioned as a theory in some of the most elevant articles linked from this glitzy template. In the only really visible article of the supposed four branches, the one about Yazidism, the template isn't transcluded at all.
As the theory has been very influential in Kurdish nationalist discourses, it definitely is notable enough to earn its own article. I'm totally fine with that, and not even opposed to the theory. Still, it remains a disputed theory that may not be presented as if it was a widely established fact.
The template might be possibly replaced by more specific templates based on established knowledge and terminology, which might still refer to different (even fringe) theories about possible common origins and close relationships. But this particular template clearly has to go. PanchoS (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I partially rewrote the article Yazdanism for clarity and neutrality. This doesn't change anything about the template though. PanchoS (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above. Aside from the prominent Yadzanism infobox template, the Yarsanism article never mentions "Yazdanism." The Yazidism article doesn't discuss it either. I suspect many members of these faiths would be surprised to learn that they're "Yazdanis". Now, much like PanchoS, I don't deny that Yazdanism as a concept is out there. Let it have its own page. But to subsume these other religions under the banner of a highly debatable position like Yazdanism is deceptive and not supported by the available sources. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:42, 5 December 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).

Template:USRecentExecution/source[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 G7 by Mojo Hand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template a long time ago, presumably to be used across multiple namespaces. It has since been removed and is no longer needed, apparently. I'm not familiar enough with template usage practice to just employ WP:CSD#G7, so I'm bringing to TFD to be sure. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete, you created it, it's not used, and there are no substantive edits from other edits, hence just tag it with {{db-author}} and be done with it. TFD is already backlogged, we don't need more discussions. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 6 December 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).

Template:USRecentExecution/date[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 G7 by Mojo Hand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template a long time ago, presumably to be used across multiple namespaces. It has since been removed and is no longer needed, apparently. I'm not familiar enough with template usage practice to just employ WP:CSD#G7, so I'm bringing to TFD to be sure. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete, you created it, it's not used, and there are no substantive edits from other edits, hence just tag it with {{db-author}} and be done with it. TFD is already backlogged, we don't need more discussions. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 6 December 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).

Template:Juddom[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 16:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in use. The talkpage shows this template is deemed not fit for use. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, not used, and not used for quite a long time. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 6 December 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).

Template:Edit War Prestige[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 16:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overly melodramatic "Great Conflagration" and unused. NE Ent 13:47, 5 December 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).

[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 relist to Dec 16. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is still in use and unmodified, despite this statement a year ago that the license status of these images has been changed to a free CC license with trademarks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest that we rename the template and change the text into {{cc-by-sa-3.0|[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}{{Wikimedia trademark}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_5&oldid=1144418222"