Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 21

< September 20	September 22 >

September 21 edit

Template:1985–86 Metro Conference men's basketball standings edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete with no prejudice against recreation or undeletion if a majority of the season links contained in this template are created. ~ Rob^Talk 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1985–86 Metro Conference men's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template JMHamo (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, or userfy until more team articles are written for this conference season. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment right now, this should be added to the Louisville season for that year, so that it's not a completely unused template. Given that several other teams in this defunct conference are prominent programs, I think it's safe to say that the season pages will exist over the short to medium term. If kept, the template needs some serious cleanup. Billcasey905 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that it is safe to say that the other Metro programs from the 1985–86 season will be created, unless you plan to. Only two other teams made the NCAA tournament that year and the articles haven't been created to this point. The Louisville article is a special case because they won the title (which is why it was created in 2009). Rikster2 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:BannedMeansBanned edit

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Grave-dancing template mostly used on user pages or user-talk pages. Recent consensus was to delete the similar {{Banrevert}}. Only 149 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See previous discussion. --TL22 (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge functionality with {{sockpuppeteer}} (perhaps with a parameter like bannedmeansbanned=yes or something like that) because as standalone it's just a relatively pointless reminder. --189.25.194.113 (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this serves as a friendly reminder just in case there are blocked users thinking of sock puppeteering. And 149 transclusions is still a high number, so... Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Making a couple of exceptions to not commenting in TfDs. This is not a "friendly reminder" that anyone would appreciate or accept; it's gratuitous gravedancing. Frankly I'd be surprised if this wording didn't have an "oh yeah, I'll show you!" effect on the banned editor who sees it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly nicer than "Hey, you're fucking banned. How can you not get that already? Are you deaf, or what? Get the fuck lost you clown! Also, your editing is cancer."..... Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest I'd rather see a giant blinking red YOU SUCK every time I logged on than this mealy-mouthed bureaucratese, but maybe that's just me :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to note is its documentation;
"This template is not intended to be placed on the user or talk pages of all banned users. It is intended to be used only when ban evasion through sockpuppetry is discovered. Its purpose is to remind the banned user that they are banned regardless of what identity they may choose to try and use to evade the ban, and to inform other users that this user was banned under another identity and that therefore any and all contributions by them may be reverted or deleted without further cause. If found being used outside of these limited circumstances it should be removed."

Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But on the list of things likely to make a socking user stop socking, a template reminding them of the banning policy is somewhere between "interpretive dance" and "singing telegram". Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as extremely transparent gravedancing. ~ Rob^Talk 03:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just some food for thought.... If we're slowly getting rid of all of these {{indef}}/{{sockpuppet}} templates, should we just delete all "blocked user" templates and be done with it? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Your premise is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't grave dancing as it is used for ban evading accounts per above, it isn't like this is going to be slapped on the account of an established editor that made one mistake that resulted in a block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reword per Opabinia regalis. This is still a useful template and would need a replacement if deleted; however, a more concise and less "mealy-mouthed bureaucratese" is desperately needed. Paine ^(talk^–^contribs) 05:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear: the wording is a problem, but in my view rewording is lipstick on a pig. This needs to be deleted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Keep as well, if only because I've just come across it and can think of a few places off-hand where it might profitably be employed. But on the subject of who it is for, it isn't only the banned editor who is being reminded of this (if he wasn't already aware of the full implications of playing outside of the rules) but also any passing editor who is wondering why an apparently beneficial edit has been dumped, and has followed up on it.

And maybe something that will persuade a banned editor from gaming the system like this is the thought that everything they have done (good, bad or indifferent) is going to be shredded when they get found out. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand the reasons for the objection, but I think Xyl 54's argument has merit--it is an alert to others. Looking at the "only" 149 transclusions, I think it very much belongs on at least some of these pages. That's about the right number of appropriate uses. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WikiProject Update Watch edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. 1) There is no expectation that a defunct wikiproject should be deleted at all, much less before its components are; and 2) there is some disagreement in the larger series of defunct project template TfDs about whether to delete or merely mark them inactive, but while topic-oriented wikiprojects may return to activity, this one is particularly unlikely to reanimate itself and make retention of the template worthwhile. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Update Watch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template for a project whose last activity was in 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because a WikiProject is inactive doesn't mean all of its components should be deleted. Activity can resume at any time, and as such that project's templates should all be kept until the WikiProject ceases to exist. --TL22 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
move to a subpage of the project. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Wikiproject exists. Wikiproject banners WPBANNERMETA have a parameter switch to indicate that they are inactive. If you want to delete the banner, delete the wikiproject first. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikiproject does not, in any meaningful sense, exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you're saying is pure nonsense. An inactive project is different from a non-existent project. Inactive projects exist but have no recent activity while non-existent projects don't exist. --TL22 (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yet you're arguing to keep unused DOI templates which have no meaningful use. However, this template is associated with a WikiProject which is not a redlink, so therefore exists, so does have a meaning. If you want to delete this template, do it properly and delete the Wikiproject FIRST. Try using MfD and other processes, since every problem is not a nail, and RfD is not the only hammer in the toolbox. In this instance, the proper tool is WP:MfD. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You misrepresent my views on DOI templates, which are in any case irrelevant to the matter at hand. There is no rule whatsoever that says that the deletions must occur in the order on which you seem to insist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single person has been involved in this Wikiproject in years. There is no evidence of any activity within it. This template clearly serves no purpose at this time. The comments asking to "delete the wikiproject first" make little sense because we do not, as a matter of policy, delete inactive wikiprojects. If this wikiproject ever becomes active again, this can always be undeleted, but it's doubtful it ever will. It's not part of our process to delete wikiprojects. ~ Rob^Talk 03:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found four users with the main ubox on their user page, and none have been recently active on Wikipedia. Sounds like a good idea whose time has come – and gone. In one sense all of us may be considered members of this project. Paine ^(talk^–^contribs) 06:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have deleted {{WikiProject Update Watch Template}} because it was a duplicate of this one. Please see the arguments in WikiProject Update Watch Template's discussion. - Nabla (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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