Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23[edit]

Template:Hewwo :D[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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serves no purpose. Appears to be a test. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 23 November 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:Essex Pirates roster[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Essex Pirates have been defunct since 2011, therefore this template isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 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).

Orphaned Cite templates[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These cite templates aren't being used, and I don't think are needed. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 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:OW/OW[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. A subtemplate that simply duplicates its parent should be deleted. I am replacing {{OW/OW}} with {{OW}} in {{OW load}}, but if there are others they should be replaced as well. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what the purpose of this subpage is, it simply transcludes the template (which is already shown at the top of the template page) and isn't used anywhere. Fram (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "Unclear what the purpose" is a good deletion rationale. YMMV. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
"...and isn't used anywhere". Unused template is a good deletion reason. "It is used by OW load" which is unused as well... Fram (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unless the author ↑ has a compelling reason to keep it. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template is used by {{OW load}}. I have learned a new HTML entity, so not a waste of time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
...which is unused as well and could be included here. Fram (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the author should add template documentation explaining that -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:36, 24 November 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:Helper[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 all EXCEPT {{Helper}} which shall be kept with NPASR. Other help templates are available (and used), and talk pages exist for users to ask questions if they do not want to directly contact a WikiProject. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, and apparently, not intended to be substituted. Confusing use, and unlikely to be used, and redundant to the functionality of several templates in Category:Wikipedia help templates. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: These templates are used on thousands of templates. Yours aye,  Buaidh  04:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buaidh: I stand corrected, to an extent: Template:Helper has 27 transclusions (not counting itself and its doc file), and Template:Helper userbox has over 4000 transclusions. For this reason, I am withdrawing Template:Helper userbox from this nomination for now solely due to its high amount of transclusions, but change my vote for Template:Helper to "substitute and delete" due to lack of usefulness since it returns nothing but a string of text and links (sort of like a canned response hatnote). However, the rest, not counting themselves and their doc pages, have 0 transclusions total, so my "delete" stance still applies to those. Steel1943 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all less Template:Helper and the withdrawn Template:Helper userbox, substituted as appropriate. These templates don't appear to be particularly valuable--people who need help with anything can always use another of our various help templates or even something such as edit protected to get help.

    Template:Helper should redirect to Template:Help me IMO. No prejudice against deletion prior to redirection. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    These Helper templates send questions about templates directly to WikiProject Templates with preformatted inquires. This procedure is far more likely to produce specific answers to difficult template questions than a generic inquiry via Template:Help me. Please click on the link on the last line of documentation of Template:Epi for an example. Yours aye,  Buaidh  04:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "These Helper templates send questions directly to WikiProject Templates [...]" is a fact. "This procedure is far more likely [...]" is not, and I find it just as likely that someone using the {{help me}} scheme, which is more generic and thus more likely to get an answer quicker (another not-fact, though we can suppose it), would be able to move forward with the change they are seeking. --Izno (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At the least, Template:Helper is too generic a name where specifically it is about templates and should regardless of any of the others be re-developed or more likely redirected, preferentially to my already-suggested target. --Izno (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:47, 23 November 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:Convert/text2[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. {{Convert}} is designed to handle these situations, and thus this template is unnecessary. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unused subtemplate of convert. (note, there is already a userspace version at User:Wikid77/Template:Convert/text2) Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep by author. The Template:Convert/text2 is in use, but has been removed from many pages without consensus; {Convert/text2} was created over 2 years ago (October 2013), to solve the strong user complaint of too many conversions intermingled within article text, so it combines the 2 conversions at the end of the text to reduce the disruption within the free-form text. {Convert/text2} functions as a wp:wrapper template for {convert} and allows quick insertion of free-form text as multiple phrases, beyond the limits of {convert} as designed for ranges of numbers but not free-form text between numbers as in {convert/text2}. Over the past 2 years, the original doc-page was deleted/renamed without consensus, and so it was recreated to begin rewriting the help-text about the various parameters. Removal, hacking and deletion of long-term templates and their documentation, over years, is a massive disruption causing many years of endless suffering, to thwart long-term progress by experienced template editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Template:Convert/text2 is actually very easy to use, had few changes to maintain it for the past 2 years (hist), and the documentation was deleted w/o consensus so took a while to rewrite. Also, I was the first to lead introduction of Lua script Module:Convert, as in the quick subtemplate {{Convert/q}}, now deleted. I hope that clears all your misunderstandings about the facts, but the tone of your message still seems hostile. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Template {{Convert/text2}} is not obsolete, but rather, an extension beyond {convert} to allow free-form text to simplify conversions, as various people have complained for years. The {convert/text2} has been used in several pages, but people have kept removing it, over the past 2 years, to support the false claim that is is "unused" (not true). See use in page "Turumtaykul" to show simple "7 kilometres long, 2 km wide (4.3 × 1.2 mi)". Older revisions of pages still invoke {convert/text2} and will fail to format if it were deleted. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only value any of these so-called "wrapper templates" ever had was to fill gaps that were not at the time covered by {{convert}} itself. If there is no gap to fill, we need not keep them. Actually, this gap hasn't yet been filled by {{convert}} but not all gaps need filling. These two articles recently edited ([1] and [2]) to use the template hardly account for a gap. To make matters worse, though, {{convert/text2}} violates MOSNUM; {{convert/text2|10|wide and|5|ft|m|high}} gives "10 feet wide and 5 ft high (3.0 × 1.5 m)" whereas, by long standing consensus at MOSNUM, the guideline states that it should be "... (3.0 m × 1.5 m)"; having "feet" and "ft" is also quite jarring. So, returning to the idea of filling gaps, {{convert/text2}} fails since it does not conform to established WP style. Your edits to these two aforementioned articles, Wikid, illustrates this violation of MOSNUM and really should be fixed. I don't mean to be hard on you, Wikid, I don't suppose anyone really does, and I appreciate the work you've done with {{convert}}, but many of these "wrapper templates" you've got hidden in the {{convert}} subtemplate space are not really useful to anyone but yourself. Yes, you find them easy to use but most won't if they ever even find them. I can't see that continuing with this "wrapper template" project is the way forward especially not if no regard is taken to the MOS. If this function is so useful, let's add it to the actual {{convert}} template. If that proves too difficult at present, perhaps we could collaborate on an alternative solution that doesn't involve a plethora of actual templates hiding in the subspace of another template (where templates don't really belong ... and there's another reason for deletion or at least a move) which nobody but one user uses and few even understand if they even find them. Jimp 06:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To help other users to find these wp:wrapper templates of {convert}, then the extra templates should be listed in the doc-page for {convert}. Instead, there has been an ongoing, multi-year campaign to delete all these templates (removed from hundreds of pages) and pretend that they do not extend the functionality beyond {convert} when many examples illustrate that they do. The underlying problem with {convert} is that Module:Convert was developed without considering a total redesign of the template parameters for {convert}, for example a new parameter "|r=3" could have rounded the output precision to 3 decimal digits and remove the old-style unnamed parameter "|3". Meanwhile, the wp:wrapper templates, such as {{convert/text2}}, extend the functionality of Module:Convert without triggering the reformatting of 750,000 other pages which do not use the {convert/text2} free-form text. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No way add them to current {{Convert/doc}}. First, stop calling them "wrapper template". They are mainly old forks. So far only those in Category:Old subpages of template:convert that are potentially used in mainspace are potential for mainspace, i.e. they might add functionality to {{convert}}.
But anyway they should not appear in {{Convert/doc}} because a. they are not MOS (should do), b. they are complicated by themselves (as Jimp described), c. they complicate main {{Convert}} documentation (ouch), and d. as Jimp described, they have no use (beyond theoretical examples). I note that I was the editor who started rewriting the main documentation after the Lua version was introduced. -DePiep (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the development of Module:Convert should have involved a total redesign of the template parameters and that the failure to do so has left us with a major underlying problem with the current version of {{convert}}. I'm not sure how this is all that relevant to the issue of these forks (the so-called "wrapper templates"). They seem to be ad hoc solutions to problems. Part of the problem with the rewrite of {{convert}} was that it didn't iron out many of the ad hoc solutions it was still using. Surely we don't want more ad hoc solutions. Instead we should be aiming at an approach which is compatible with {{convert}} so that if a function really does prove useful, it could easily be added. Jimp 03:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The parameters of {{convert/text2}} are designed to be easy to use, as an extension of {convert} for ranges of 2 amounts, but all append free-form text after the 2nd amount. Getting the Lua script Module:Convert to accept free-form text will be complicated because any misspelled unit-codes might appear to be the "free-form text" and so the Template:Convert/2 is also a wp:wrapper template of {convert} to allow more flexibility in range-words. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The similar {{convert/text3}} has also been listed for discussion. Jimp 07:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or sandbox or something. The MoS issues need ironing out, but there could be useful stuff here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I am not convinced that the wp:MOSNUM issue of repeated unit symbols "(3.0 m × 1.5 m)" while not used by current "{{convert|2|by|3|ft}}" showing "2 by 3 feet (0.61 by 0.91 m)" actually would apply in many uses of {{convert/text2}}. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the modern {{Convert}} example you give does comply with WP:MOSNUM. The crux is in the "×" versus "by" in the second (bracketed) value. -DePiep (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "by"/"×" functionality was originally added to {{convert}} in compliance with MOSNUM. Somebody (not mentioning any names) changed it such that it didn't comply. This was fixed before the Lua version was introduced. {{Convert}} currently complies in this respect. {{Convert/text2}} does not comply. With "×" the unit is repeated, with "by" this is not necessary. MOSNUM has said this for years. Jimp 03:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This myriad of legacy sub-templates, which are replicating rather than perusing Module:Convert has to go sooner or later, no doubt about that. And I don't know why we are beginning with this one here rather than Template:Convert/2 which seems to be clearly superseded by Template:Convert.
    This one, however, clearly offers useful functionality. I know a number of articles where this functionality would improve readability, with the MoS issues being secondary and easy to fix.
    This template's functionality should either be incorporated into Template:Convert, or superseded by a redevelopped, more modular version of itself that in the end could be named Convert2 (without the subpage's slash). Until this is the case, the legacy template needs to be kept. PanchoS (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For years, Template:Convert/2 has extended the capability of {convert} by allowing free-form text between 2 amounts, which {convert} had not allowed for over 8 years, such as "{{convert/2|3|by almost|7|ft|m}} across" showing "{{convert/2|3|by almost|7|ft|m}} across" while the current Module:Convert shows error as "3 by almost[convert: unknown unit]". The various wp:wrapper templates of {convert} extend the functionality in many other ways, such as {convert/text2} allowing free-form text after the 2nd amount converted and between the unit-names or symbols. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This stubborn accusative attitude by Wikid77 is getting too much to keep it a discussion.
Wikid: "has been removed from many pages without consensus": these were ordinary edits. Not every edit needs a "consensus" discussion. Lack of such a discussion does not signify 'no consensus' as you seem to think.
"Over the past 2 years, the original doc-page was deleted/renamed without consensus"
Actually, the one and only docpage {{convert/text2/doc}} was created over one year ago [3] (by me). Until then, documentation was substandard in-template [4]. So your 'two year' claim is false. Nor are any deletions/renames visible in its history. Why that omnious word "help-page" injected? All in all, the documentation content history is full of holes and bad solutions. Noted: another 'without consensus' claim.
"Removal, hacking and deletion" (hacking, really?) "is a massive disruption causing many years of endless suffering" - Wikid77, you tried enough to sabotage the module:Convert introduction two years ago. You did not agree or understand (remember you were the only one - that should tell something). OK so far. But you should stop accusing others (like me) with vague selfrighteous false claims. There was no 'hacking', no 'disruption', no 'suffering'.
I note that the full post by Jimp @06:53 describes the situation eloquently. Still, the reply does not address the core issue. SAome good news: as for usefulness: modern {{Convert}} has, since introduction December 2013, gone from 450k to 750k transclusion pages. -DePiep (talk) 15:06, 1 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:Db-gfdl[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 call to mark as historical. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an exceedingly unusual and highly specific reason to need to delete a page. The same logic could apply to CC-BY-NC type licenses as well; no need for a GFDL-specific speedy deletion template nowadays. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nominator forgot to account for the fact that what appears today unusual was a frequent occurrence at the time of Wikimedia's licensing change (in particular since the change was retroactive). Back then, several users submitting content in good faith that used to be validly licensed would get confused or aggravated when presented with a generic G-12 template, and this cut down on needless strife.
Nonetheless, this has outlived its purpose, and probably only oldtimers even remember its existence. MLauba (Talk) 13:13, 26 November 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:Die Another Day[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As below. Why were these created in the first place? Gatemansgc (talk) 02:41, 28 November 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:Skyfall[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do we really need a template for one link? Gatemansgc (talk) 02:38, 28 November 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:Chris Haw[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 7. Primefac (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:03, 23 November 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:Shane Claiborne[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 7. Primefac (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:03, 23 November 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:RuneSoft[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is video games published: do not refer to each other, only thing in common is same publisher. Other video game templates are based upon developer, not solely publisher. Soetermans. T / C 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 23 November 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:Images[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, no quorum. TfD doesn't seem to be the right venue to discuss this issue, which seems to be mostly about how to categorize images and tag the resulting categories, with the vague name of this template being a side issue. The structure of the image category tree would be better discussed elsewhere, and then this template can be renamed or renominated for deletion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous thread

Okay, so the previous thread "clocked out" with no consensus because not enough posters showed up. Anyway...

For the reasons mentioned in the previous thread, I don't think we need this template:

  1. Way too generic name:
  2. Basically says you can't categorise FU images, making them hard to find:
  3. Yes, there might as well be local freely licensed images, but still.
  4. Someone in the previous thread suggested having two image category trees - one for free images and one for non-free images. (For example, see Category:Images of Barack Obama vs. Category:Non-free images of Barack Obama). The free image categories would be tagged with a template similar to this one, and the non-free image categories would be tagged with a template that says the opposite.

Thoughts? Hop on Bananas (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the template should be kept, but renamed to e.g. "Image category", and the content updated to address your concerns. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if my proposals get done, we wouldn't have this template anymore, would we? Regarding the idea of having separate categories for free and non-free images, the free image categories could be tagged with a template that pretty much says what the current template says, and the non-free image categories could be tagged with a template that says the opposite. But right now, all the current template is saying is that you can't categorise non-free images. As someone said in the previous thread, "it is useful to categorise all files" and if you don't want non-free files showing up on the category page, add __NOGALLERY__. Perhaps the names of the templates I proposed could be "Free image category" and "Non-free image category" or something like that, respectively. Anyway, the just "Images of X" categories would be tagged with a template that says the should only contain categories (I'm pretty sure something like this exists, but I don't know what it's called). Hop on Bananas (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:40, 23 November 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:Uw-longterm[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I question the need for a warning template specifically for long-term abusers. The previous iteration of this template said "Vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked", which is a pretty clear WP:BEANS concern. I removed that and changed the wording to "Your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse, and will not be tolerated". But I think the whole template falls afoul of WP:DENY and should be deleted. We shouldn't be acknowledging long-term abusers in this way.

If anything, the very similar but DENY-compliant {{uw-vandalism4im}} can be used in place of this template where it is felt that the user should be warned before being blocked. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even if I did not agree with the logic of the nomination, this simply isn't being used in any meaningful way. We have plenty of better warning templates, we don't need this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:40, 23 November 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_November_23&oldid=1073739825"