Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 10

December 10

Template:User VYRE Unify user

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

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

Template:Apprenticecandidates

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)

Template:Christianity browsebar

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)

Template:Use while instead of whilst

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)

Template:Incoterms

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)

Template:Unnecessary attribution?

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)

• 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)

Template:Uw-rikrolblock

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)

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)

• 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)