Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26[edit]

Template:Largest cities of Saint Lucia[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 after merging content. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Saint Lucia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. Places of less then 13.000 inhabitants are no cities. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't a navbox anyway: it's a data table. Belongs directly in Saint Lucia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Single use. Reformat as table and merge to article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • subst and then delete. The content issue can be discussed at the article talk page. mabdul 03:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Maxtremus has spent the last month creating several hundred of these city population templates, and this is just one of them. I'm wondering if its worth looking into some standard for these, which articles (countries, provinces, counties?) if any these templates should be employed on. If we should use them, then maybe set some barometer for places like Saint Lucia where its just not worth it. He's also made ones for microstates like Andorra, little Liechtenstein, and San Marino, which doesn't even have ten cities!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 22:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep. I first ran into Maxtremus' city template at Illinois. I am not normally a big fan of templates and tables, as I lean towards expressing information as prose. Nonetheless, this template provided an aesthetically pleasing improvement to one of the articles I care most about, and I would not want to see it deleted. Nonetheless, I understand User:Patrickneil's point that maybe for some places it's over the top because there aren't enough cities. So I think I would support some cut-off criteria that would keep this out of some articles of smaller places. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'oh, delete, not a reliable source, and trout everyone who suggested keeping. I have raised the larger issue at ANI, as these templates are not based on reliable sources and have been spammed into hundreds of articles. [1] In this case, Geonames is a Wiki, not a reliable source. Why is the inclusion of non-reliably sourced information being supported here by anyone? There are potentially hundreds of similar, non-reliable templates created by Maxtremus (talk · contribs) that need to be added to this TFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into article per Gadget850, fixing the terrible accessibility whilst we're there. Or at least fix the accessibility, please — try reading Andorra on a mobile phone and this template is totally illegible. I'm sure it would be possible to achieve the same visual effect without messing up the accessibility. I could live with the template existing for convenience's sake, if it were properly accessible and properly sourced. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:41, 1 May 2012 (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.

RfX-notice[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 keep the first four, but delete the fifth. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RfX-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:RfA notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rfb-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAG-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Administrator candidacy notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As a result of my RfA (and because nobody did, although Killiondude suggested), I doing it now: I nominate all RfX notice and the related wrapper and templates per WP:CANVAS for discussion. mabdul 19:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I personally wouldn't use one of these. I think they're tacky. Anyways, it says here that " ... canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed." (sidenote: Why is it ok for crat requests by not sysop?) To sum it up, I don't see it as canvassing. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but the BAG-notice because that one is required by the BAG policy as part of a compromise to resolve unrest in that area. MBisanz talk 19:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Can you please link me (and maybe explain me) why that BAG-notice is needed on the talk page of the user? (Should a notice placed at WT:RFA?) mabdul 19:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I forgot the exact wording of Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bot_Approvals_Group, so it isn't technically required by the policy. But, compared to RFA, which merely permits neutral advertisement, the RFBAG process encourages neutral advertisement and requires it for certain pages. MBisanz talk 20:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the RFX template at least. If I am ever up for any of those, I would like to have a template that I can plop on the top of my user page or talk page telling the world about it. I am not sure how far and wide RFA, RFB, etc go these days without such a template. I have seen tackier on here. Even without the template, people will just come up with some more outrageous advertisement of their RFA, RFB, etc nominations. At least these are low key advertisements. (I know I am biased, since I am the creator of the RFX template. It is hard watching one's work being discussed for destruction.) LA (T) @ 22:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination of the first four is pointier than a Toblerone. I actually agree with deletion of the fifth because it encourages proxy-canvassing: a note on one's own userspace is fine, but one can be a member of a dozen WikiProjects and it's easy to see how one well-meaning editor could use that template in good faith and end up scuppering a candidacy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MrLittleIrish (talk) © 10:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Chris Cunningham's rationale. Keep first four but delete {{Administrator candidacy notice}}. Pol430 talk to me 10:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first four but delete the last. The first four of these templates do not meet any of the requirements listed in WP:CANVAS#Inappropriate notification, which leaves me somewhat baffled as to why Mabdul has pointed to that page for the deletion reason. That said, the last one does meet WP:CANVAS#Votestacking as it invites specific people to the discussion who are likely to be favourable to the candidate. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first four, Delete Administrator candidacy notice (as per Thumperward/ɐuɐʞsǝp) - putting one of the RfX/BAG templates on your user page isn't canvassing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Delete per Thumperward; There's no reason to believe that a notice on a User Page is in violation of WP:CANVASS. I would imagine more people enter the User: namespace because they are unhappy then to pour praises upon someone. Achowat (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first four because if I know enough about someone to have their user page watchlisted, and they apply for adminship or whatever when I'm not watching RfA, I want to know about it. Also, I don't see any serious argument against {{RfA notice}} at Mabdul's RfA; I think Killiondude was criticising some of the opposers' rationales, not {{RfA notice}}. Delete the last per Chris Cunningham. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1-4, Delete 5 Per Achowat, the RFX templates are more likely to attract opposes then supports. Even if they are used for inappropriate canvasing, I see nothing wrong with leaving around plenty of WP:ROPE. Monty845 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These were nominated per WP:CANVAS, but it was not demonstrated how these templates are used in violation of the canvassing guideline. The templates are neutral, non-partisan, transparent, and are generally not posted in multiple locations. Therefore, there is no policy-based rationale for deleting these templates. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, CANVAS doesn't apply here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first four, rm -f 5th - I used the one for RfA, it cut both ways. Achowat probably explains it best. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 16:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile on with keeping all but the fifth Don't see any issue with RfA candidates popping these up on their user pages. I did, as have dozens of other RfA candidates. In the war on canvassing, this is too silly to even be called 'small fry'. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1-4, delete 5. Canvassing requires that the notice have biased wording, the audience be partisan, the message secret or the posting on a large scale, none of which is the case for the first 4 templates. The last one, as has been mentioned above, will tend to attract editors favourable to the candidacy. Hut 8.5 21:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep 1–4 I'd be flying uncomfortably close to the sun to assert that those who post these probably do so with the intention of boosting their RfA chances. What I am comfortable in asserting is that users wouldn't post these if they felt that on balance the impact was very likely to be negative. On that basis, this can be considered a form of advertising. I have no intrinsic problem with that, because all RfA candidates have the option of using this template, but thought it was worth pointing out. —WFC— 09:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{Administrator candidacy notice}}, keep the rest. I think it's acceptable to inform visitors to your userpage that you're currently going through RFA or a similar process without breaking the guidelines against canvassing; but informing members of a project you're part of is going too far and crosses that line, IMO. Robofish (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The first four are not strictly canvassing; though some might object to their use, I think that is down to the individual candidate. The last one targets specific users likely to support the candidate, which is canvassing and so should be deleted. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the RFA/RFB notices. I don't care enough about the rest to research them. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reaper Eternal and ItsZippy. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scottywong. There is a difference between canvassing, and simply letting the community know what is going on. Some Wikis even post current RfAs on their village pumps and other news threads. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is not canvassing as the box is neutral. It just informs others about the RfA not attract votes. Yasht101 16:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — there are plenty of situations in which it's appropriate to mention that you're up for RFA (your userpage being one of them), and these templates make it a lot easier to do it in a neutral fashion than if you're writing your own message. We don't prohibit people from limited neutral notifications of this sort of thing, and the fact that these templates are used for that purpose shows that they're a good thing. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2012 (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:2008-09 Turkish Super League Winners[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) 03:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008-09 Turkish Super League Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 5#Template:Fenerbahçe SK 2010-11 Champion Squad. GiantSnowman 08:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per consensus & excessiveness. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally overkill, delete. mabdul 03:22, 29 April 2012 (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/2012_April_26&oldid=1138695748"