Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 28 September 30 >

September 29 edit

Template:Infobox sport shooter 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox sport shooter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recently created fork of Infobox sportsperson with |sport= set. It can completely replaced by Infobox sportsperson. Magioladitis (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Gladiator 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Gladiator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single transclusion. I suggest we replace with infobox person or infobox sportsperson. Magioladitis (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge together all pro-athlete/sportssomething infoboxes for people who use stagenames (such as {{Infobox professional wrestler}}) and use that resultant template -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - when I looked at the biographies of people notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography, it was not obvious that you would want to use this template in the article. The Gladiators TV show was something they did at the time to earn money.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator, this was written to replace the hand-hacked tables that several cast members previously used. Now that these have been either removed or replaced, it obviates the need for this template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Complexity Class 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 12. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox NFL team awards 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NFL team awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. 0 transclusions. I can't recall ever being used. Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Characters and names in the Quran 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Template:Characters and names in the Quran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navigational template started out with a modest 50 names or so. It is now into the hundreds, if not thousands. It is not useful with that length. In retrospect, it should not have been allowed in the first place; the Quran is just too large. This is the size of an index to a Bible concordance, which is much too large to be helpful. Also, these are being placed in articles on nearly everyplace in the Near East. The placement is impossible for the average editor to verify but seems WP:UNDUE. Student7 (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator and restore the previous version ([1]).Kiatdd (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice template, gathering all of the names of people, locations, cities mentioned in the Quran. Has existed since January 2011 and was recently expanded. Still needs some polishing. By the way, Kiatdd contradicts himself, saying "delete" and "restore previous version". As for WP:UNDUE, a Quranic mention is very notable! Debresser (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The template was apparently increased to include people and places that were implicitly cited by the Quran. Not sure that the original template was useful, but the new one is quite impossible for non-Quranic scholars to check for accuracy. And such checking is important since it is now being posted on nearly every place-article that existed in the 8th century in the Near-East along with all people even briefly mentioned (or hinted at!) in the scriptures. Student7 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: will the nominator please notify editors who have contributed significantly to this template about this discussion. Alieseraj should definitely have been notified. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is no longer a template, it's a list article in disguise. This is not useful as a navbox at this size, and either needs to be massively trimmed, or split into tens of templates. As it is it should be deleted. -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 1- The template doesn't have thousands of entries. In Linking pages you can see that there is less than 200 entries (the template is used in [nearly?] all the entry articles). 2- It is surely useful, because in every section there is only a few items. 3- It's not like a Bible concordance. The index of Quranic terms is hundreds of pages, and the most popular Quranic Index is "Al Mojam el Mofahras Li Alfaz el Qur'an al Kareem" by Muhammad Fuad Abdul Baqi. 4- I didn't understand the relation of this template to Due and undue weight policy. Seraj (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC) + WP:NAVBOX declares that templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden. There are many large templates in wikipedia, like this one: {{Philosophy topics}} (one can search for bigger templates. I didn't!)[reply]
  • Keep again! : As I said, the number of names are not excessive in this template. If we were to omit the Bibilical names and relationships -which are explained in the note below the template- the template would be something like this; but we can't do that, because we will lose many useful informations! but this shows that the number of names isn't excessive. Seraj (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the previous template isn't a good idea, because: 1- It also has the not mentioned names, which notes they are italicized. (If we delete the implicitly mentioned names, we should delete many significant names, which includes Asiyah, Hājar/Hagar, Bilquis, Zuleikha, Benjamin, Khidr, Nimrod, Potiphar; and even Habil/Abel, Qabil/Cain and Hawwa'/Eve who their story is narrated, but they're not explicitely named!) 2- It is incomplete, and doesn't mention many of the names in the Quran. I haven't done anything special, but looked up the "Quranic names" template in other languages and completed the template. (I did that in Persian Wiki last year, and when it was successful, I completed the English wiki's template.) Seraj (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of the names and comments(parentheses) could be omitted, which a prototype is seen here (which was undone, because of the deletion process). I have also noticed that we might differentiate between two types of implicitly mentioned names: the ones mentioned in the Quran, but not named explicitly (like Abel and Cain, which it is said: "The two sons of Adam which..."), and the ones that are merely by exegesis (but I don't think there are many of this type of names; and I'm not sure if it's a good idea).Seraj (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a double ballot Seraj has already registered a keep above this opinion thread, before "Keep Again!". -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone could clearly see the word Again, and also As I said.... I just wanted to advance another argument. BTW -as I've said in the following- this is not a voting procedure.Seraj (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the excessive size precludes any serious use as a navigational aid.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Outline of Islam, and reduce navbox to key elements only - this is an frequent use case for overgrown navboxes. Minimize the content in the box, and merge the existing content into a subsection of the outline. –Quiddity (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is absurdly large for a template to be used at the bottom of an article page. And remember, it will not necessarily be the only such template at the bottom of articles where it is used. Books like the Koran and the Bible mention in passing huge numbers of names - the idea of listing them all in a navigation template is not practical.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again!: I think it's a matter of design. If some people think it's unusable, because it is poorly designed. If it is designed like this, then it would be more useful. Many of the templates are as large as this template, or even larger, like {{Selachimorpha}}, {{Placodermi}}, {{Corvidae}}. Even there are some large unmanaged templates, that are [happily!] being used, like {{Arvicolinae}}, {{Araneae}}, {{Squaliformes}} and {{Technology}}.Seraj (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you already !voted above on 30 September twice with a "Keep Again!" comment and a "Keep" comment; this seems to be a triple' ballot. -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I know, this is not a voting procedure. The Keeps and Deletes are not counted to conclude for the deletion. Every time, I have discussed something new. I have wrote the "Again" so that the vote is not counted twice! Seraj (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's WP:NOTAVOTE - but !voting multiple times is certainly misleading and therefore frowned upon. GiantSnowman 15:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would 3-4 smaller templates be better than one all-inclusive template? I would disagree with that. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the concerns seems to be that the current template is too big/unwieldly; splitting it up is therefore a sensible solution. We do it with articles, and we also do it with templates i.e. for bands that have a significant discography. GiantSnowman 11:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While this sounds "fair," our problem here is being able to check editorially on an insertion of a template. I could have a template that contains "Mustapha's wives." I can verify these through the bio on Mustapha. I could have a template "Places conquered by Jamal." I could verify this through the bio "Jamal" or the article "The Wars of Jamal." What I can't do is verify anything that is inside a book someplace, that is not inside Wikipedia itself. So the idea of a "navigational template" fails for lack of ability to "navigate" between one known person or place, and being able to check this out with an article linked to the template name. Student7 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would surly be verifiable, just the same way. You can verify these names by looking at the "In Quran/Islam/..." section of each entry. meanwhile, you can refer to an Islamic or Quranic encyclopedia.Seraj (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. It needs to be verifiable totally within Wikipedia itself. The editor does not have to be an expert in the field. I should be able to verify a physics navigational template, although I am not qualified in any way to be a physicist. Navigational templates should be obvious to anyone, not just to the initiate. Student7 (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1- Which Wikipedia policy or guideline needs the navigational templates to be obvious to anyone, even the non-experts in the field? As I see, many of the templates don't have such property, including the templates I introduces previously (e.g. {{Arvicolinae}}, {{Selachimorpha}}, ...) 2- As I said, it's verifiable within Wikipedia (the "In Quran/Islam/..." section of each entry). 3- Can't a whole template have a reference? Please pose a policy/guideline. 5- This template is discussed for deletion because of it's size, not "verifiability totally within Wikipedia". Seraj (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a navigational template is not obvious, how can it be useful? If it is not useful, why use it?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite is true. Has many useful entries. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
per Wikipedia:A navbox on every page, "a navbox is a template that lists at least several and sometimes hundreds of pages that are related". Seraj (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A navbox on every page" is not policy, but this one is: "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." (WP:NAVBOX).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that is not the case here. And if you think it is, try improving the template slightly. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAVBOX says: "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:... There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.". Where is the article Characters and names in the Quran? It does not exist.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you said WP:NAVBOX says: "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:... There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.". Many or -I should say- most of the templates don't have an article on the subject.Seraj (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC) + We do have some articles on the subject: Characters and names in the Quran, and also Prophets in Islam and Table of prophets of Abrahamic religions; so this template is a "Good template" :) Seraj (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Judge Anderson book 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Judge Anderson book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

3 transclusions. It can be replaced by Template:Infobox book series. Magioladitis (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox polstyles 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox polstyles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. I don't we need this infobox at all. Magioladitis (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox future comics 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 12. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2008-2013 Hawthorn Hawks premiership players 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008-2013 Hawthorn Hawks premiership players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template, covered in both Template:2008 Hawthorn Hawks premiership players and Template:2013 Hawthorn Hawks premiership players, no precedent whatsoever for combined templates with a 5 year gap for that matter. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Frietjes (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jevansen (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Tfd's comments that a 2008-2013 Hawthorn Hawks premiership players' template is redundant because templates for each of those two years has the same invoice misses the point. The idea of such templates is to show which players have played in a multi-premiership winning team, the "core" of each year's teams if you will. The 5 year gap between the titles is no reason for not deleting this template - it's not common for teams to win premierships that far apart but none in between, yet half the players in the '08 team also played on the '13 winning team - and they had the same senior coach. Some templates for multi-premiership winners have the same number or less players than this template. A more relevant questions is whether for Hawthorn's many premiership winning teams in the later '70s, the '80s and early '90s, greater amalgamation of templates could occur i.e. keep all the existing ones but have some that cover players who played in all of a set of 3 or 4 successive premierships the Hawks won in that time (not necessarily premierships won in successive years, but nth, (n+1)th, ... titles that Hawthorn won). (Anonymous, 18:40, 2 October 2013 (AWST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.16.17 (talk)
  • Delete - no reason to have this template; an in actual fact I would support deletion of the other two as well. GiantSnowman 10:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox defunct basketball team 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox defunct basketball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IPsock 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template simply should not exist, as its use is contrary to policy at WP:HSOCK, which mandates only blocked accounts should be tagged. Per adminstrator sockpuppet instructions, the template used to tag blocked ip socks is {{SockBlock}} NE Ent 22:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It doesn't meet speedy criteria. Doc talk 03:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's also {{Sockpuppet}} and {{Sockpuppeteer}}. — Lfdder (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - IPs should not be tagged unless static, and even then they might change. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously?[2] Do you really think you are going to change this in this way? Very shady. Doc talk 04:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is kind of shady when policies are changed without discussion or consensus, like this. GregJackP Boomer! 11:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before that there was this, followed by [3] reinstatement by another editor. I clarified that the talk pages, not user pages, of IPs should be tagged. There was no exemption for unblocked IPs at this point, at all. IPs needing to be "relatively static" in order to be tagged is not something that has been adhered to in the past. Why this should change needs discussion before altering the instructions. Doc talk 07:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To ask a question of those below: Do you support tagging the same IP with multiple sock tags? And do you want hundreds of thousands of tags? BT Internet, for just one example, gives EVERYBODY access to the entire /8 range! (That's 16,777,216 IPs for those unfamiliar with CIDR notation.) Each and every one of these could be used for sock puppetry by any sockmaster on BT Internet. Given enough time, we will have tens to hundreds of thousands of tags on IPs used for one or two block-evading edits. These IPs will then get given to random readers and other good-faith users. They could even be given to different sockpuppeteers, resulting in two, three, or more sock tags on an IP's userpage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bleak scenario, 'tis true. Discretion in tagging is what usually happens: trusted users who know what they are doing when tagging. The other editors in the community understand who is tagging in an appropriate manner and who is not. Doc talk 09:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I think it's useful for finding and categorizing pages that prolific banned users edit, so their edits can be found more quickly, but on the other hand if this were deleted it would enforce WP:DENY better and also people are currently using it incorrectly, to unnecessarily harass people and tag pages of obvious shared IPs. I don't really care, delete it or don't. To RE's comment above, I don't know what you might have learned as a CheckUser that I don't know, but I thought tagging the user (not talk) page of an IP even at the risk it might change causes even less collateral damage than a block on an IP. But I may be wrong. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Currently it has been used to harass IP editors who have not been proven to be socks and should not have been tagged to begin with. GregJackP Boomer! 02:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, this template has been here for years. Yes, those of us who use it to identify socks have been using it for years. Yes, the language at the sock policy page (as well as the admin's sock tagging instructions page) have been altered slowly without concern for consensus. Tagging an IP's talk page with this template is not only a very useful tool for quickly identifying socks that has existed for years, it is the basis for countless legitimate SPIs. Emptying all "suspected sock puppet" pages is unthinkable to me. Doc talk 02:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the policy was changed due to abuse, during the ArbCom decision in the Climate Change area. The policy prior to 2010 only allowed an administrator to tag accounts as IP socks. NuclearWarfare changed the policy here on July 23, 2010. At the time, IPs and accounts were being accused without evidence of being socks of Scibaby, with a false positive rate as high as 20%. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good diff from NW - backed by community consensus(?) Sure, right? The policy, like most, is a battleground using a war of attrition to say that tagging any IP is bad. Believe me: admins of equal power fundamentally disagree over it. It's not getting hijacked is what I can tell you with confidence. Doc talk 04:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The flag is one person's opinion subject to misuse by editors as a dirty defense in content disputes. Without due process usage is like taking the law into your own hands. It becomes a red target on disliked editor's back for future over aggressive editors to justify harsher actions against the flagged IP editor. WP has formal SPI procedures that make this template outside of policies. The IP editor is either found a sockpuppet or not. No "I think". It's non-AGF. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One person's opinion? What are you talking about? Do you know how long this template has been in use? Tagging any editor with any template is "one person's opinion". Do away with templates? Doc talk 03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything too confusing in what I stated and I didn't use the term templates. Do you know how long sockpuppetry has been in use or is time related somehow? How many opinions should it take if I placed one on your user page because I saw you typed a familiar phrase another editor used once? Are you attempting to say this would be OK as long as it isn't done to you? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeAs stated at ANI editors like HarveyCarter (talk · contribs), Bambifan101 (talk · contribs) and Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs) used 100s if not 1000s of IPs. Not all of their IPs were blocked. But, the tagging of them helps in tracking their hopping. At times simply placing the tag stopped them from using the IP. The tagging also helps to show admins who are unfamiliar with, or new to, the problem editors just how pernicious they are. We should work to reduce the abuse to our articles and the harassment of editors who work to stop this abuse rather than increase it by acting like there isn't a problem. I welcome IPs that come here to edit constructively. IPS that are here to vandalize and troll the project should be stopped and removing the few tools that we have to do that is not a good idea. MarnetteD | Talk 04:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. This nomination is in error. I AGF on the part of the nominator, but this effort fails to recognize fundamental flaws and inconsistencies in the current wording, and then compounds the error by seeking deletion of these templates on the basis of this flawed wording. That won't do at all.
To understand this issue, one must ask oneself: "Why does this category exist?" It was not created in error, but for a purpose. We already have other categories for blocked socks, and the "suspects" category was needed and has been widely used by editors and admins for many years. It serves a valuable purpose. A quick look at the various versions of the template shows a progression from "suspects" to "confirmed" and to "blocked". The change made by NM failed to realize this and introduced problematic wording which created other problems. The prevention of abuse is a very legitimate concern, but this is not the way to do it. Fix the wording first so it's in harmony with standing practice, and later deal with any abuse.
Tagging "suspected" socks has been accepted and standard practice for many years, and sock/vandal hunting would be seriously hampered without these templates. The problem is not with the templates, category, or possible misuse. The problem is the current wording, which is inconsistent with the name and purpose of the category. "Suspect" =/= "blocked". So the solution is NOT to delete these templates or category, but to fix the wording so it is in harmony with the longstanding use of the category.
I have proposed such a change and welcome comments. I hope that editors will address the actual problem with the wording. It's pretty obvious to anyone with English as their mother tongue, or to anyone who understands very basic logic. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you still support tagging all dynamic IPs, since a dynamic IP is "automatically" in violation of the socking policy? GregJackP Boomer! 06:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend making the change in wording immediately. At worst the template will be deleted anyway so it's a wash, and at best it's a good clarification. Doc talk 05:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. Deleting this template would harm Wikipedia's ability to defend itself against attempts to falsify consensus. Cardamon (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. If this template did not exist, someone would have to create it. We need the ability to tag IP talk pages that are being used for sock-puppetry. If there are problems with the wording, they can be fixed. But the basic principle is that editors need to collaborate - and to do this editors need to share information. There are situations when an editor is using a different IPs to make it look as if he/she is more than one person and create the illusion of support for his/her POV. There are also situations when editing from IPs is used to get round blocks. By putting these tags down a markers, it is practical to keep track of some of this and take appropriate action. The alternative is that we all have our own bespoke tag, that we paste in.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until an alternative is devised to listify IP socks that have been identified by behavioral evidence etc. This came up on AN about a year ago too. This is essential in the case of some prolific sockmasters who jump IPs often and are restricted to a few ranges as it helps identify these socks for those involved in such cleanup. There is potential for abuse with such a template, but that should be fixed separately with consequences for the editor(s) abusing this. While tagging every IP sock to populate categories appears silly and can be a problem for the next editor, there is a need to keep this list as it helps link certain edits to certain masters based on the ranges. I would support an alternative where such a template addition causes a bot to add this to an SPI subpage along with diffs (similar to a CCI page) and then remove the template from the IP talk page with a link in the edit summary (or if the SPI is non existent, allow the editor to create one and if not, just remove the template). This way, the next person to use the IP isn't offended but there's also sufficient info for anyone investigating. —SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace the blocked ones with {{SockBlock}}. remove from pages where there is no SPI, and make the SPI link mandatory, then archive all the old ones from dynamic IPs (e.g., the work by User:SharedIPArchiveBot). Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best idea all around. Where there has been a block, list them, otherwise remove them. GregJackP Boomer! 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GregJackP, you still haven't practiced due diligence by looking at the template yet, have you? And yet you dare to try to delete this, and delete evidence from numerous categories by emptying them and nominating them for deletion. If I did that I'd be hung and quartered, and I've been around here a bit more than you, to say the least.
Let's break this down so anyone can understand it:
  1. First, take a good look at the template itself and notice the wording: "Please refer to contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence." Notice the "or"? Anyone looking at the template can look at the contribution history and try to figure out what's been happening. If they are really concerned, they can always ask the editor who placed the tag. IF there is an SPI, the part after the "or" comes into play. This is basic English 101.
  2. Then, take at look at the bottom version. The tagging works like this: (1) tag a suspect; (2) if later confirmed by SPI, then modify the tag; (3) if then blocked, modify the tag again: "If the user believed/confirmed to be using the IP is blocked, you can add the "blocked=yes" parameter." That such modification doesn't always happen is just a simple fact of life. The confirmation and blocking don't automatically appear in the watchlist of the editor who placed the tag. It may happen some time later. No harm done. Only a guilty party will be blocked anyway, and if it's an IP, it's a very short block. If it's a dynamic IP, the editor won't even know their page was tagged and that they were blocked! They will usually have moved on and don't even know which IPs they have used.
  3. Finally, take another good look at the bottom here. This construction and sequence totally blows your particular interpretation of the confusing Hsock wording out of the water. When NM made that non consensus change, things got screwed up and the obvious purpose of the template was ignored by those who are ignorant of its history and proper usage, people like you. In fact, you are the only one I've known to raise the issue, besides the IP who inspired you.
Solution? Fix that nonsensical Hsock wording! Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you quit misstating facts? I can name any number of editors and admins who disagreed with you, your position, and were ready to topic ban you for violating policy in naming "suspected" socks based on "secret" evidence and "tells" which you have not had the time to share with us (or anyone). Hmm. No time to share supposedly secret evidence, but time to post diatribes all over the Project about how it really is OK to abuse IPs, because it's not like they really edit, and are sort of second class citizens. I was around when the Scibaby false positive controversy came up, and I can guarantee you that NuclearWarfare had consensus, there were plenty of discussions leading up to it, including [4], [5], and [6]. In addition, prior to the change by NW, only admins were allowed to add the suspected sock tag, go look at the language. LOL, if you really cared about "due diligence", you would have practiced it before you labeled others as socks. Unless, of course, you really do have "secret" evidence to share with the community. GregJackP Boomer! 00:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's just one of many socks I tagged from an IP-hopping time-waster named Veryverser (talk · contribs): 68.198.216.227 (talk · contribs). I even confirmed it was him, all by myself, without a SPI. I'm not even an admin. No due process, it could be argued. How was I so sure it was him? He signed his freaking name, like he always does. There was no "personal attack" involved in the tagging (and WP:HARASS does not equal WP:NPA, to address the point you made at AN/I). The day that I have to SPI every single quacking IP is the day we all should just give up on SPI. Many, many times the IP goes stale while the case waits at SPI, and no admin will block because it's no longer necessary. But we still need to record the behavior. Requiring the IP to be blocked before tagging is unrealistic. Had I been wrong about placing the above tag, or any other, I would face the consequences. Doc talk 01:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good example! You just improperly tagged a user that forgot to log in, declared who he was and made no attempt at deception. That sockpuppet label attack was not following WP:Policies at all and should be removed after you place the apology template on the same page explaining you made an error. I doubt these templates have rules argued out just for some to make up their own rules. Let me quote from WP:SOCK
" Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies."
I don't see where your lone opinion is properly applied to this editor's page in this fine example. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good example: it's a perfect example. See, 'cause that user had been indefinitely blocked quite earlier. They didn't "forget to log in". You are barking up the wrong tree with me, I can assure you. This should get fun :) Doc talk 11:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologogies. I forgot about your mention the account was already through the proper process and the sockpuppet tag was applied according to policy. However, your implied threats and suggestion of gaming the system is inappropriate. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize for the error, as we all make them. I don't think I've accused anyone of gaming the system at all; and I try to keep my threats overt rather than implied ;P Doc talk 12:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that interpretation is correct, WP:SPI/AI tells admins not to tag IP addresses when blocking socks. The only time an admin is supposed to tag an IP is if it is an open proxie or a static IP. GregJackP Boomer! 11:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SPI/AI has recently boldly been changed by one editor with no attempt to garner consensus by describing "standard practices". My reversion of that one editor's bold change was itself reverted, apparently to reflect those standard practices. BRR - no D. That's how it rolls with those who want to change policy without input from others. Doc talk 03:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, didn't you add the part that was changed by that editor? Back in July 2012? Without discussion or consensus for the change? GregJackP Boomer! 04:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not originally. It was removed here before that. Doc talk 05:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, though I think most of us agree that it should be fixed/improved in some way -PC-XT+ 08:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Doc9871 and Arthur Rubin. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the nominator's primary argument is undermined by GregJackP — a unilateral substantive change to a policy page does not represent consensus, and decisions dependent on the policy page should rely on the state of the page before the unilateral change. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording at WP:HSOCK is at least a year old [7] NE Ent 22:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification. Most agree it needs to be fixed, but a lot of bad faith is being exercised in attempts to prevent it from being fixed. The discussion here is directly related to a proposal elsewhere, so everyone here needs to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Illogical wording 2. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sadly, this is mostly used to intimidate and harass. Abuse of this tag (which is all too frequent) stifles discussion instead of fostering it. Newpeter1112 (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing we take into account these sorts of "votes" from new accounts. Mostly used to intimidate and harass? Sure. Welcome to this page for your first edit! Doc talk 07:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to think harrassment is actually OK as long as it isn't you being harassed. When a hypothetical scenario was presented that somebody could actually put a sockpuppet tag on your page you responded very excitedly with challenging retorts. Perhaps this new, more anonymous, editor was just recently harassed into creating an account name. Try to AGF and cut the sarcasm. It doesn't work in a text only environment. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you couldn't put a sock tag on my page at all. I said you'd better have a really good reason for it. If you think it harrassment to point out that for a new account to come to this page for their very first edit is odd; it's not. New editors don't do that. So, yes, it could be an editor who was harassed by others into creating an account. Or it could be a blocked user. Doc talk 00:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have noted, some indefinitely blocked or banned users frequently circumvent their sanctions by mis-using IP addresses. To me, the advantage of being able to track anonymous block evasion to the greatest extent possible, by means of this template, outweighs any disadvantage presented by the harassment counter-argument. SuperMarioMan 23:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Noodle 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noodle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chinese noodles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pasta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Chinese noodles and Template:Pasta with Template:Noodle.
(1) Template:Noodle is the most-encompassing, while the rest is rather a split-off. (2) At currrent, the convention is that Template:Noodle is only for noodle varieties but not dishes, which is problematic considering that the dishes are occasionally getting added then removed and many dishes in the context of noodle is navbox-less. I would suggest adding those too with a {{Navbox subgroup}} into Template:Noodle (similar to how Template:Chinese noodles seperates varieties from dishes). That is a better option than making separate regional navboxes. (3) The decision to add either Template:Noodle or a regional one to an article is arbitrarily (most use Template:Noodle instead of Template:Pasta for example), so might as well combine the the regional with the all-encompassing navbox. (4) Entries like Pancit (Filipino noodles), Pancit estacion, Pancit Malabon, and others are floating around... this merge would benefit the navigation of those articles in the context of the topic noodles. Cold Season (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose all three templates are large, we shouldn't use {{noodle}} unless we really need the large template. Navigating to Japanese soba noodles from Italian spaghettini isn't really necessary is it? Chinese and Italian pasta/noodles are part of the very large topics of Chinese and Italian cuisine. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In your perspective maybe, but it's still not beneficial, organized, or effective. Everything could be put in the Template:Noodle and it would still be of reasonable size. Several regional noodle navboxes would entail many unnecessary duplication (unless Template:Noodle gets deleted), have all the topics spread out despite being in the same general area of interest, and have smaller topics like Pancit (Filipino noodles) fade out by the disorganization of several navboxes about noodles. Template:Teas is a good example of how it should and could be in a all-encompassing manner, since forking into smaller navboxes is detrimental. "Chinese and Italian pasta/noodles are part of the very large topics of Chinese and Italian cuisine." It may be, but no one is suggesting we should include these smaller noodle sub-topics into those cuisine templates (which would be too much anyway), so I don't see the relevance to this proposal. --Cold Season (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The duplication can be solved by having {{noodle}} itself call the other two templates. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge of pasta template into noodle template. I recommend the opposite, merge noodle into pasta, because many references categorize noodle as a type of pasta. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editors at the article Pasta have a clear consensus that "pasta" is about the food in the Italian cuisine and not about all regional noodles, either you don't agree with that consensus or you are saying something contradictory. If not, then the pasta article would need a scope change, unless your argument is plainly incorrect. The Oxford dict defines noodle as "a strip, ring, or tube of pasta or a similar dough..." (US) or "a very thin, long strip of pasta or a similar flour paste..." (UK), meaning that noodle is the encompassing term. While pasta is defined as "a dish originally from Italy..." (Oxford dict UK and US ed). --Cold Season (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyway, can I infer that you support a merge of the navboxes, even though not this specific merge, from your statement? --Cold Season (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm basing my argument that many notable, reliable resources refer to noodle as a form of pasta. Even the Oxford Dictionary definition you mention above appears to indicate noodle as a form of pasta, meaning IMHO that pasta is the parent category. This furthers my argument that the noodle template should be merged into the pasta template, and not the other way around. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't even try to pull a fast one with your attempt to redefine info from the ref, that's very loose use from you "IMHO". The Oxford dict clearly states that noodles includes pasta and other similar dough/flour paste products, while also stating that pasta is of Italian origin alone (meaning that noodle is the all-encompassing group). Navboxes reflect its corresponding articles and if you wish to redefine the Pasta article beyond Italy (which I don't even particularly care about), then propose it there, since you aren't bringing any opposing arguments why this merge is detrimental (only giving a basis of why you don't agree with the Pasta article's scope). --Cold Season (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, I based my categorization of noodle on other dependable sources written by experts on the subject, such as Principles of Cereal Science and Technology by R. Carl Hoseney which states on page 327 that "Noodles are a type of pasta". In terms of the definition of noodle by the ref you presented, I obviously read it differently then you and see it as noodle as a specific type of pasta product, meaning pasta is the parent. Also, the history section of the noodle article suggests noodles originated from China, so saying that pasta is a dish originating from Italy becomes irrelevant in my view. I don’t claim to be an expert, so I disclaim that interpretation as IMHO. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • About your statement "the history section of the noodle article suggests noodles originated from China, so saying that pasta is a dish originating from Italy becomes irrelevant in my view"... the article section does not state that noodles originated in China, it states that the earliest occurrence was in China, so your statement is plainly incorrect. In Lan T.T. Bui and Darryl M. Small's "The impact of flours and product storage on the thiamin content of Asian noodles" (2008; published in LWT - Food Science and Technology, vol 41, issue 2), it states "There are two groups of noodle products made from wheat. These are pasta products typically prepared from durum wheat (Triticum durum) by an extrusion process as well as Asian wheat flour noodles." We can argue back and forth, but your view remains the one that does not correspond with the consensus as established in the Pasta article, which for some reason you contest here rather than in its respective article. This is a sidetracking article content and scope dispute right here (yet I'm still humoring it...). Your statements have brought zero arguments of why a merge should or should not happen. Navboxes reflect the articles. --Cold Season (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • This discussion has made it clear to me personally that these two topics -- pasta and noodles -- are too broad to merge into one nav box. So far, we have referenced them as a cuisine, regional dish, type of shape, and formulation. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's quite clear what the regional noodle topics are about, what you listed are subtopics (noodle varieties, dishes, shapes, etc) for which a proper navbox is needed, rather than have them spread out, unnecessary duplicated, or even completely left out due to not fitting in a certain noodle navbox. --Cold Season (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pasta includes a variety of dishes as a secondary meaning, and I saw no supporting reference for pasta being a kind of noodle in the article. The Oxford dictionary reference says a noodle is a qualified form of pasta or other dough. That the kind is qualified implies that pasta includes other classes that would not be called noodles. Using this information, I construct the following Venn diagram: (Pasta of other shapes and dishes (strips, rings, or tubes made of pasta dough) Noodles made of another similar dough/flour paste) If the main category is shape, pasta and noodles are the parents. If dough, pasta and flour paste. To me, Pasta seems to be a stronger parent, though it's not clear-cut enough for me to be entirely comfortable, as the terms seem to have different inclusion criteria. It could generally be said pasta is a type of noodle, and noodle is a type of pasta, though they are different terms. Ideally, a merge would organize all the criteria, placing them both in a higher category, but it sounds like it may be hard to reach such a point, and I don't know what that higher category would be. -PC-XT+ 06:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to either the pasta template, or whichever template is the original, redirecting the others, unless such a merge cannot be categorized into a hierarchy very well in which case I would say to keep as is until a source-based consensus can be reached -PC-XT+ 06:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and consider deleting Template:Noodle. The template is already too broad and too large. Far better to maintain separate noodle templates for each cuisine. The comparison to Template:Teas is unhelpful, as that template covers an ingredient and its various forms, whereas Template:Noodle attempts to cover a broad variety of foods that have only a loose connection based on similarities in their manner of preparation, and between which it's not likely readers will need to navigate. List of pasta groups these articles sufficiently. Ibadibam (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ruby-big 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ruby-big (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused.  Gadget850 talk 12:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment, it is currently used in Pinyin, so what's the replacement? Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct- missed that somehow. But the use does not look right:
{{Ruby-big|媽|mā}} → {{Ruby-big|媽|mā}}
Whereas {{Ruby|媽|mā}} → 媽(mā)
I'm not an expert here, but I don't think mā and variants are ruby text. And the template is not working properly and hasn't since 2005. But I see how to fix it. --  Gadget850 talk 20:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine to me, it looks the same, except that the standard Ruby is rather small. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{ruby}} with an option for sizing. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. Template:Ruby/testcases --  Gadget850 talk 23:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not Really. If you look at the documentaion page (which was a bit off before) then you see that that words which consist of Ruby and non-Ruby look a bit off it any Browser without further adjustment:
{{Ruby-big|全|すべ}}て
Also I want to remind that Firefox, one of the most used Browsers (and also Standard Browser of Many Linux distributions) has still problems rendering Ruby-big correctly (with the Ruby Plugin, of course and without Ruby Plugin (or any non-ruby compatible Browser) it also looks weird, since the top is smaller than the base.
My1xT(a.k.a. My1 (insecure)) 06:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's solved with {{Ruby-big|全|すべ|after=て}}
{{Ruby-big|全|すべ}}
-- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in the sandbox {{ruby/sandbox|large=yes|全|すべ|after=て}}
全 (すべ)
-- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Wikify request 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was moving back to User:Bvlax2005/wikirequest. Feel free to move it elsewhere if there is a better place in userspace for it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikify request (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since {{wikify}} is now deprecated, this notification template is no longer useful. And the creator of this template is inactive for a few years. George Ho (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I fail to see why this is no longer useful. It links to the glossary for "wikify", and a request to the primary contributor to add internal links, or convert ASCII/HTML markup to Wiki Markup is fine to have. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to userspace - might have a future purpose, feel free to move it to User:Mono/Wikify request. Mono 18:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{Wikify}} doesn't exist anymore, so a template dependent on it shouldn't either. Why is this not a slam dunk? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, since the wikify tag has been deprecated it no longer makes sense to ask to wikify a page.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy as requested Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Mono -PC-XT+ 08:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pointless now since {{wikify}} is deprecated. Garion96 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29&oldid=1142562741"