Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 12 June 14 >

June 13 edit

Template:BLP-revdel 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. The template (or category) would allow tracking of BLP violations. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REVDELREQUEST says To avoid the Streisand effect, there is no dedicated on-wiki forum for requesting revision deletion under [circumstances other than copyright violations]. This template is a clearly against that policy and its restoration from a correct T2 deletion was incorrect. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand now. You may delete it again. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The purpose of this template is to avoid the Streisand effect. It is needed because there is no dedicated forum. It places the article in question into the hidden category requested RD2 redactions and with any luck an admin will see it and action the request soon. Pppery, if a non-admin sees an offending edit, please explain how they are to draw it to the attention of an admin to get it hidden. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything else WP:REVDELREQUEST says that Pppery didn't already quote above is You can send a message to any administrator in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests either at their talk page or by email, especially if privacy is a concern. You can also request revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your request (if you don't have an IRC client, click the green connect button to launch web-based IRC; for more information, see WP:IRC). Keep in mind that if the revision you're reporting could be subject to oversight, follow the procedures at WP:Requests for oversight or email oversight-en-wp wikipedia.org. —Cryptic 04:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If in doubt, email an oversighter or the oversight list is the short of it. There are some RD2 that don't qualify for suppression, but like I said below, people tend to be really bad at realizing what is "potentially libelous"... TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If used, then keep but make it invisible on the articles i.e. remove the big box but keep the category. Christian75 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't solve anything. The problem isn't so much that someone might notice this template stuck to the top of a biography they're already reading anyway; it's that they can look at the category and get an automatic, ready-made list of articles that haven't been actioned yet. Even removing the category too doesn't help, since they can just look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:BLP-revdel and get it from that. Delete. —Cryptic 04:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete are you kidding me? I'm not sure if it would be wheel warring to reverse an admin reversing himself, which is the only reason I haven't done it yet. This template defeats the entire purpose of RD2, which is to hide things that harm real people. Having a category for them is beyond a terrible idea. Additionally, speaking from personal experience, this category will be populated with things that are eligible for suppression, because people frequently don't understand what qualifies as potentially libelous, and often aren't sure if it should even be revdel'd. I'm not sure if this qualifies for RD2, but I thought I'd check and it's equivalent are said so frequently in regards to oversightable material, it isn't even funny. This really needs to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Follow the instructions in the policy to report content that needs to be hidden. Publicizing BLP violations by using this template is reckless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per T2 --DannyS712 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with fire per Tony and NRP. Jeez, is there a bigger neon sign? (Don't answer that.) Katietalk 21:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A template or category that draws attention to a BLP violation needing revision deletion is the opposite of what should occur, and the opposite of WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actively harmful method of making this particular request. BLAIXX 14:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this is a clear T2 candidate and shouldn't be deleted on that basis, but requesting this type of action through a publicly available template isn't a good idea. We don't seem to have a good way of making requests for these actions though. The only ones suggested in the policy are emailing a random admin to ask or asking on IRC, which most people don't use. Hut 8.5 21:50, 19 June 2019 (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:2016-17 I-League U18 ROI Group A table edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged (with attribution) with the parent article per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:25, 14 June 2019 (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).

Miami-Dade Transit s-line templates edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for various Miami-Dade Transit services. Consolidated in Module:Adjacent stations/Miami-Dade Transit. There are also 12 dependent s-line data modules to be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2019 (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:XBIZ 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template with no useful navigation left. All of the remaining targets have been redirected to the parent article at XBIZ Award. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_13&oldid=1138372831"