Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 10

< December 9	December 11 >

December 10

Template:AF Reminder

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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:AF Reminder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template warning an individual that he/she is a member of a wikiproject, but is not contributing. Unfortunately, the project in question has so few members, that this template is most likely not necessary. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If the project picks back up, I'd recommend a friendly non-templated note instead, as an inactive editor frequently comes back to a talkpage full of old notices. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Box Office Leaders2

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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Box Office Leaders2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned navigation sequence box template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused, and succession boxes for box office standing are discouraged per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Succession_boxes. --RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If the sequence of Box office leaders is an important point to make, it can be expressed in the prose. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Baseball box inner start

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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Baseball box inner start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Baseball box inner end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There are other formatting templates that would do the same sort of thing, if necessary. The fact that these are orphaned would indicate that it is not, or that those other templates are already being properly used. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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:American International Yellowjackets football coach navbox

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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:American International Yellowjackets football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned navigation template with only one non-redlink. Articles should be created before navigation? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a useful navbox when there is only one valid link. Since this has been around since February, there has been plenty of time for the articles to be created if that was the intention. --RL0919 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Bemidji State Beavers football coach navbox

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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Bemidji State Beavers football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Assumption Greyhounds football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Brooklyn Kingsmen football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned navigation template with only redlinks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all. Unused and lacking in functional links, despite being around since February. Navboxes with no articles to 'nav' aren't useful. --RL0919 (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Appalachian State bowl games

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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Appalachian State bowl games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned navigation template with only redlinks Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep: To encourage creation of new articles.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As Duffy2032 implied above, the redlinks may be notable games that have not yet been written due to their obscurity. I don't know much about college football in this time period, so I can't offer an opinion either way. ThemFromSpace 13:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. An unused template does little to encourage the creation of articles, because virtually no one will see it. It is better to put the redlinks into the body of articles, which people are much more likely to read. The fact that this has been all redlinks since February shows how little article-creation it has encouraged. --RL0919 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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:CIAPrisons

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

The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Orphaned template with some possibly speculative content. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, should have been inserted in articles on individual CIA prisons; but was unfortunately forgotten about; no longer orphaned. Nothing is speculative, is used, and lists, only those articles which have heavily-referenced status as a CIA black site. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  Comment: Great, but that's only the first subsection of the template. What about the list of people? Should this template be culled to only include the list of prisons? For example, there is already {{CanadianTerrorism}}, {{GermanTerrorism}}, ... which contain lists of people. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep but some editing is needed. I have no objection to there being a navbox that includes articles about the facilities and persons detained in them, but if the article about the person doesn't say anything about them being held in such a facility, then they don't belong on the template. I've removed one such instance already. --RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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:CO Camp Facilities

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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:CO Camp Facilities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template with only redlinks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No use for a navbox of redlinks, and this has been around since 2006 so there has been plenty of time to create the articles if that were the intention. --RL0919 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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:User VYRE Unify user

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) 18:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:User VYRE Unify user (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an orphaned userbox. Miami33139 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Technically, userboxes are supposed to be discussed on WP:MFD. However, considering that this box has no transclusions, links to a deleted article, and appears to be abandoned, I doubt the venue of discussion will have any affect on the outcome. --RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm forced to agree; if we had a PROD for templates such as this, I think it would fit well here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Apprenticecandidates

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 subst and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Only used in one article, should be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, creator is an indef blocked sock. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Subst and delete. There have been plenty of editors since it was created, so I don't see the creator's status as an issue, but as a single-use table there is no need for this to be a template. --RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  You are correct. The comment about the indef block was to indicate why my attempt to contact the original author was fruitless. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Road to Episodes(Family Guy )

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 speedy delete as recreation of material previously deleted after a TFD discussion Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Road to Episodes(Family Guy ) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_10#Template:Family_guy_road_trip). There's no need for this template as the episodes aren't connected in any way except for the titles. Theleftorium 17:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, recreation of previously deleted material, which was deservedly deleted because the episodes are being related by a trivia connection. --RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing notable except for sharing a common title. Ωphois 17:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Christianity browsebar

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) 18:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Christianity browsebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is unused. The only real reference to it that I can find is one discussion in the WikiProject Christianity archvies. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 10:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused; the Christianity-related portals appear to use {{Religion browsebar}} instead. --RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Use while instead of whilst

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) 18:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Use while instead of whilst (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think this template clutters talk pages, for no real benefit (i.e. I expect that most people editing the articles won't even see the template). If it is decided to delete this template, the associated category Category:Whilst-free articles should also be deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - pointless, ugly, and smacks of ownership issues. LadyofShalott 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The personal preferences of a single editor, even the one who created an article, have no special authority and should not be promoted through an authoritative-looking message box. --RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and while we are at it, delete the image after it becomes an orphan. Nuclear Lunch Detected  _Hungry? 08:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Incoterms

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) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

All but one of the links in this navbox is a redirect back to Incoterms; the navbox is therefore redundant. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough distinct articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Unnecessary attribution?

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 speedy delete as T2. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Update: Now relisted here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Unnecessary attribution? (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. Not used in any articles. Seems to be completely pointless. Attribution is rarely unnecessary (per WP:V, etc.), and when it is, the issue can just be discussed on the talk page of the article in question. We don't need this any more than we need a {{unnecessary source citation}} template. The cited policy material does not address "unnecessary attribution" at all. The closest it comes is warning against misleading the reader into believing that two opposing views have parity when one is actually a majority view and the other a fringe idea, by attributing both views to lone proponents. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with this template.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The nom says it well. Attribution is far more often desirable than not, and any one-off problems with excessive attribution or mis-attribution can be handled without this type of tag. Also, linking to a policy that does not discuss "unnecessary attribution" could be considered misrepresentation of policy. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. See WP:ASF: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases (see Undue weight) where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.

When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.

This template is useful for the project. See Talk:Vaccine controversy#No serious dispute for a discussion about WP:ASF. Unnecessary attribution when no serious dispute exists among reliable sources is a violation of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this tag is not useful. Tags such as {{citation needed}} are helpful because there are many cases where an editor may be able to notice that such a change is needed, but be unable to implement the change themselves (for example, because they don't have the source material at hand). Such tags allow editors to mark the problem for future attention from someone who can fix it. However, if a widely accepted fact is being inappropriately attributed as an individual's claim (e.g., "Astronomer John Doe says Mars is a planet"), then any editor can rectify this by cutting the attribution. It is the equivalent of creating a tag for {{misspelled word}} or {{missing period}}. Fix it, don't tag it. The example you give from Vaccine controversy shows exactly how pointless this tag is: after you created and applied this tag, you rewrote the passage yourself two minutes later and removed it. --RL0919 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I see no situation where an attribution is superfluous. People read WP for its attributions and sources, not for our beautiful prose. Crum375 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. [1][2] Your reason for deleting the template is not a valid reason. QuackGuru (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a template that misrepresents established policy (criterion T2). ASF does not mandate attribution when no serious dispute exists, but that does not mean that it discourages attribution in such cases. That Napoleon Bonaparte died in 1821 is a fact, not an opinion, but that fact had damn well better be attributed to a reliable source. QuackGuru, please realise that the WP:NPOV policy is just one of many (see Wikipedia:List of policies, and it is incorrect to base one's entire editing philosophy on the contents of just one policy. Tagged for 2nd admin review of speedy deletion. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Uw-rikrolblock

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/userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Uw-rikrolblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This really does not seem like a good idea to me. For one thing, some people are not going to get the refrence, for two, it does not explain the blocking procedure at all, and for three, there is no justification section. Unless someone goes out of their way to declare that this is for rickrolling, it is going to create issues. Nuclear Lunch Detected  _Hungry? 06:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) The text below the verse is verbatim the text of {{voa}} (vandalism-only-account block notice), giving exactly word-for-word the same explanation.

(2) The documentation does declare that it is for "Rickrolling vandals". Look at the list.

(3) Presumably anyone blocked for Rickrolling will get the reference.

(4) There is no "justification section" (whatever that's supposed to be, beyond the text already there) in any of these block notices. Do you intend to delete all of them? Or if you think such a section necessary, wouldn't it be more appropriate to discuss adding such a section with the WP:UW User Warnings project, rather than deleting templates for the perceived lack? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as incivil, bitey, borderline antagonistic, and smartassy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC) PS: It's a bad sign when a uw-series template is itself likley to trigger {{uw-joke1}} if you use it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Indef-blocking a vandal isn't the situation WP:BITE addresses. The link for "antagonistic" above is to WP:NPA; where's the PA? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• That's a really terrible template, and I can't imagine it being used substantially. It's not even spelled right. Delete. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The format of all the block-notice template names is Uw-[abbreviation]block, for instance Uw-botublock for use of a "bot" username. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sizzle, you don't need to reply to every single comment here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've found Sizzle's replies informative (they haven't changed my mind about the template, but...). They are not confrontational and do not repeat the same arguments over and over, and I actually like to see the creator of a page being an active participant in a deletion discussion for that page. Just my two cents... –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirects now include {{rickrollblock}} and {{rickroll}}. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Having this template "breed" new redirs that will just have to be deleted if this is deleted isn't helping your cause. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Since one issue was being able-vs-unable to invoke via correctly-spelled {{rickroll}} etc., the redirects address that concern. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - unnecessarily smartass. A simpler template accomplishes the same thing. LadyofShalott 17:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Cutesy language could be edited out, but in the end the standard vandalism templates will work just fine. We don't need a special template to acknowledge one particular kind of vandalism. --RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - It's funny. never gonna let them back, never gonna give them slack, never gonna let them troll nor unblock them... - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - There's poetic justice to blocking a Rickrolling vandal with a notice in the same metre. Even the vandal might have to admit it's only fair. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment is this covered under fair use? and if so, is it allowed to use fair use wording in a maintenance template? If not, then it's an unlicensed cover of the lyrics. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Those are not the lyrics of the Rick Astley song "Never Gonna Give You Up"; they are only to the same metre. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It is a cover of the lyrics, not just something of the same metre. Is there enough original content to be non-infringing? If not, it's a parody, which is usually fair-use, but this isn't being used to parody the song for use as a parody, it's being used for something else. There's a reason why Weird Al Yankovich got permission of the artists he was parodying before publication of his songs, even though they are different songs in the same metre. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
      • No, Rick Astley didn't mention "login" or "unblock". These are not lyrics from his song.

        Although Weird Al didn't use their lyrics, he did use their (also copyrighted) tunes in his performances. The template has no music. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

        • It falls under derivative work, and Wikipedia has an article about it. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Look at uw-adblock. It explains the violation and offers a solution process. This template does not mention rickrolling in the displayed area (most people are not going to look at the documentation,) and the resolution is in the subtext, rather than the focus. It is a poorly used template, gives a bad impression, and is unhelpful. Nuclear Lunch Detected  _Hungry? 08:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of those are concrete editing suggestions. Done! Take a look. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the poetic element, delete per Wikipedia:Deny recognition (yes, it's an essay, but I agree with its arguments). If kept, rename to Template:Uw-rickrollblock. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That now exists as a redirect, letting the original abbreviated name fit the pattern of WP:UW's other template names. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Preserve in user space without redirect. Too stupid to seriously use, but too awesome to condemn to the ether. Let it live as a joke. @harej 02:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - block notices should be serious, not "funny". In addition, I cannot foresee many instances where this would be necessary, as I have never encountered even one vandal "Rick roller". Violation of WP:DNFTT and WP:DNITV. Possibly add to whatever documentation we have of deleted funny things, if the closing admin is so inclined. Intelligentsium 03:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What, never? In that case, here's one! and what looks like another! I defer to you so you can have hands-on. And here's an example from late September. And an earlier one-two-three, but see the target's comment (at question 12). And a backgrounder suggesting this tool. (Here's a very much milder case of Rickrolling in usertalkspace.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • PS, FYI, times do change, viz. WP:Articles for deletion/Rickroll vs. WP:Articles for deletion/Rickroll (2nd nomination). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: But why had you not reverted those instances of clear vandalism? Intelligentsium 00:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
      • As I said, "I defer to you so you can have hands-on." You have now "encountered even one vandal 'Rick roller'" yourself. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as absolutely lacking the seriousness that block templates should convey. The naughty step is always serious, after all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  There are over 9000 reasons why .... sorry, wrong internet meme — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Why was this even created?  fetchcomms☛ 22:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • To post on the talkpages of indefinitely blocked Rickrolling vandals. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy per precedent. Tim Song (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Intelligentsium.--Zvn (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as extremely bitey as well as redundant to one or more other block templates. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Normally I am a by-the-book, policy-wonk sort of guy who only !votes to keep things that are dry and bureaucratic looking ... however this block template has just the right flavour of irony complimenting it's poetic justice. — Kralizec! (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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.