Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 14

February 14

Template:Infobox league commissioner

Template:Infobox league commissioner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created as a derivation of Template:Infobox officeholder to be used in articles about baseball officials, but I think the standard Template:infobox person already includes all the necessary parameters, see this diff to see how a replacement would look in mainspace. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. This isn't a "derivation" of officeholder (how can it be if it was made with the infobox template, while officeholder isn't?), was created with consensus reasoning (seen here), and isn't meant for baseball officials. As the name suggests, it is meant to be used for any sports league commissioner (past and present) such as those of the MLS, NBA, NFL, MLB, college leagues such as the Southeastern Conference, Pac 12, etc. It is in the process of being refined into something (through consensus discussion) that is much more custom in information to this particular position. The officeholder and person infoboxes were deemed inadequate as discussed above. Brian Reading (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There doesn't seem to be any discussion of {{Infobox person}} in that section. Please can you explain why it is not thought adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect into Template:Infobox officeholder. I don't see what needed parameters require a different template for the position of Commissioner, which is an "office" one "holds". It's not an elected office in the normal sense, but still. The officeholder template allows for "preceded", "succeeded", "term start", "term end", "deputy", "occupation", and other parameters that should suffice in describing a league commissioner within an infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Template Infobox officeholder appears to be a general template used to implement many different infoboxes all for political offices, and so I believe it is inappropriate for a non-political office—it may emit metadata or categories that aren't relevant to league commissioners. I don't have much issue with using Infobox person, though I don't find the logic of the nomination compelling: even if infobox official post (recently introduced in the Commissioner of Baseball article, also I believe in error), for example, had no new fields compared with infobox person, it could generate different classification info that cannot easily be done within infobox person. isaacl (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • {{Infobox officeholder}} emits no metadata or categories which would preclude its use. Indeed, infoboxes generally do not emit categories (other than for tracking technically the usage of certain parameters) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator and Muboshgu. If I'd noticed the discussion on the Baseball wikiproject I would have counseled against creating this in the first place. Unless there are sports-specific fields which can't be met by existing templates there's no reason to create a fork and it'll just create more overhead going forward. People need to stop having hang-ups about what a template is called and focus on what a template actually does. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  I think it makes it harder for editors to maintain the infobox officeholder template if it is used for multiple purposes: political officeholders, and baseball commissioners. They may make formatting or other decisions that are appropriate for one scenario but not the other. Thus I do not believe a merge to infobox officeholder is a good idea. isaacl (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Merge — If there are formatting or other concerns, they can be brought up when they appear. By merging, the template serves more varying needs, and that should be taken into account when changes are made. This has worked well for most past template merges. —PC-XT+ 01:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox judoka

Template:Infobox judoka (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox created three days ago and currently counting four transclusions. Biographies of judokas (of which there are thousands) have always used Template:Infobox martial artist or Template:Infobox sportsperson. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nom after replacement —PC-XT+ 01:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bon monastery

Template:Infobox Bon monastery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Newly created infobox with two transclusion, seemingly a derivation of Template:Infobox Tibetan Buddhist monastery. Rather than having a different template for every religion, we should use standardised templates like Template:Infobox religious building. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Greenville County Major Highways

Template:Greenville County Major Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per past precedents (by-county templates for Michigan [Dec. 2011], Washington [July 2012], Georgia [May 2013], Texas [Oct. 2013], Hawaii [Dec. 2013]), these sorts of templates have been considered redundant to the county transportation category. Imzadi 1979 → 19:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per past precedent. TCN7JM 01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - per past discussions. Dough4872 05:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Roads in Palm Beach County, Florida

Template:Roads in Palm Beach County, Florida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per past precedents (by-county templates for Michigan [Dec. 2011], Washington [July 2012], Georgia [May 2013], Texas [Oct. 2013], Hawaii [Dec. 2013]), these sorts of templates have been considered redundant to the county transportation category Imzadi 1979 → 19:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete – redundant, past precedent. TCN7JM 04:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Serves to clog up the article bottoms and little more. --NE2 14:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Unneeded. Dough4872 20:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox presenter

Template:Infobox presenter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{infobox person}}. Either the required parameters should be included in that template (preferred), or this template should be recast as a module for it. (This template has 495 transclusions) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd go with the option of recasting it as a module. I'm not really a fan of modules in general, but I can't see much use for parameters such as timeslot2 in other biographic articles. (By the way, does the list of infoboxes work well for you now?)--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• rewrite as a wrapper for {{infobox person}}. Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:User warning-mentalhealth

Template:User warning-mentalhealth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was nominated at MFD originally so I am moving it here. The text below has been copied from the MFD listing. Bencherlite^Talk 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the result of a discussion at [1] where a user put this template on a page before hatting it with the note "Still current, but seemingly ineffective at stemming others' aggression." The user then committed suicide. This nomination is so that more further discussion should be had on the subject of such templates on the basis of Wikipedia is not therapy. See also Template_talk:User_warning-mentalhealth#Discussion of template at Jimbo's talk. Note that I am unsure of where to place this discussion, although Leaky Cauldron did say it belonged at MFD. If it belongs at TFD please move it. KonveyorBelt 23:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I suggested MfD without really thinking about TfD. If it needs to be at TfD for a discussion, so be it. Anywhere a decent exposure can be had. Leaky Caldron 23:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly worried about exposure as I already mentioned it at Jimbo's talk. Would MFD be appropriate policy wise? KonveyorBelt 23:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - it may not be very widely used, but I think this is in principle a useful template. I'm happy not to have any serious mental health problems myself (as far as I know!), but for those who do, I can imagine they might want to notify other editors of that fact, and that it may affect their editing. Robofish (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - No way of knowing if this template is being used in good faith. Too easy for trolls to use this template as cover for trolling. --Surturz (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Unconvinced by the nom or Surturz that there is likely any problem with the template itself. It seems useful. the prohibition on using it on others seems a sufficient troll barrier. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Less unconvinced by TParis. Leaning delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Solomon7968 14:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete we should not be fostering an attitude of culpability for the mental, physical, or emotional issues that editors face. Wikipedia is not a mental health clinic, a doctor, or a support group of any sort. That fact doesn't diminish the real danger of poor mental health at all, but Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors lack the medical education and experience to support those users. In addition, we have on-wiki legal concerns that we must enforce despite a user's mental health. If a user is posting copyrighted material, we have a legal obligation to block them. We are not ignoring mental health, we are asserting that these editors need to follow the appropriate procedures to obtain help. Similar to WP:NLT blocks, editors need to disengage and seek help from an appropriate venue and not seek it here from other editors. When we encourage editors to seek help here, by using templates such as this, we are doing those editors a disservice by implying that they will get attention and that help will be available if they use this template, when in reality it is not. Delete.--v/r - TP 02:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, Agree with Robofish. First off, I'm one of those people. I do have chronic depression, with recurring thoughts of suicide. And I have used the template before as sort of a "leave me alone" message when I felt particularly low and antisocial. I found it relieved the burden of social expectations just a bit, and didn't mean for it to be a cry for help (and I can say this wouldn't be my first choice for a 'cry for help').

TParis makes a very good point, but this is not an all-or-nothing issue. On my off-days, I will just fix redirects or spelling errors and might put up the template. I don't engage in very involved topics and don't post. I can still do a great number of tasks.

I don't feel the template requires competency or education about the issue(s) the editor placing the template faces. It should be simple and straightforward: it asks for assumption of good faith, gives an explanation to delayed responses, and lets others know the editor's state of mind ("out of it"). Compare this template to {{User stress}}. It's almost exactly the same.

I feel there is a lot of finger-pointing going on about this template, as if not responding to it killed John. This template was John's reaction to the trolls. Not fighting off the trolls killed John. I don't think the template really made that much difference. Why don't we, as a community, take this to the Village pump (policy) and collaborate on ways to thwart attackers, stalkers, etc.? What we really need to do is get trolls off Wiki.

Also, John used the template to get the trolls to pity him enough to leave him alone, but that's not the template's purpose. He used the template in a way it was never intended, as a last resort, because he couldn't think of another way to get peace.

It still serves many valid uses, most of which are unrelated to depression; for example, editors prescribed a new medication and wishing to edit low-key, not knowing how it will affect them yet. I see this template as no different than {{User frustrated}}, {{Bonked}}, or {{User grieving}}.

Nonetheless, if it would help the community more to delete this for reasons I am not aware of (e.g., widespread user-page tagging as a sick joke) so be it. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Meteor sandwich yum I am unsure if you understand the gravity of your comment. If you really experience recurring thoughts of suicide then you should completely cease editing Wikipedia and give real life priority. Solomon7968 09:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my slight digression here while I explain.

It was no exaggeration: I have severe (major) clinical depression. While I appreciate your concern, I choose to edit Wikipedia despite this obstacle. I assure you I am not putting myself into harm's way by editing; nor am I ignoring my mental health by continuing to work with this project—I am followed by mental health professionals and receive routine care (and they believe it helps alleviate my depression by volunteering here).

Note that, were I having a suicidal crisis, I would immediately cease editing and call a suicide hotline, with appropriate follow-up care; perhaps one of the lesser-known features of chronic depression is suicidal ideation without plans of suicide—involuntary thoughts of killing oneself independent of any goal to do so. A very different matter entirely is a "suicide crisis"—an immediate urge to act upon impulses, which requires immediate emergency medical intervention (this was likely what John was facing).

Neither condition is an appropriate reason to place the template on one's user page. The template is not to inform others that the person is in a suicidal crisis; like you said, they require immediate attention. Rather, depression can make a person feel low-energy or drained, confused or "foggy", and reclusive. These are appropriate uses of the template.

If I didn't respond to someone's message, but they checked my contributions and noticed I had been active recently, they might believe I was ignoring them. The template suggests the user is unable to do so at the moment, and aids in this manner. I feel too many people discussing it have inferred a different purpose entirely. But it's not a suicide template. I am against templates suggesting such.

My point was not to draw attention to myself, but to show that some people with depression or other mental illnesses are able to contribute competently and healthily in their better moments, and sometimes contribute in lesser ways despite these issues when they can't. By the way, I am not upset or offended, and am not trying to shout with the underlines & italics, just trying to make a point. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. The fact that since Sept. 2011 [2] until 3 days ago this template was advising that the user had limited scope to "participate in conflict" suggests that no one really takes much notice of it. The community at large are not equipped to fully understand and appreciate the issues related to mental health and an over-simplified template is an inappropriate device. A user with genuine issues can just as easily write a short message pertaining to their condition if they believe it would be helpful. Having generic templates scattered around on long forgotten user pages or capable of being maliciously placed as a joke is the wrong approach. Leaky Caldron 10:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per TParis Secret ^account 18:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have no strong opinion about this template, but I believe Tparis comment is off the point. First of all how this template is different from that one used at the talk page of one of your arbitrator? Both templates are used to notify others about health issues. Of course wikipedia is not a therapy, but asking for assistance and understanding is not the same as asking for a therapy. Nobody is asking you to be doctors. Just don't be bullies, and if you see bullying by others stop it. 71.198.251.167 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The difference is that the template Salvio Giuliano is using is a physical concern for which she is not implying that self-harm may result. When it comes to self-harm, a template like the one here is the cry for help that precedes self-harm. Not only are we not qualified to provide help, but the majority of us aren't even able to figure out who users are and where they live. If this template is kept, it needs to include some legitimate resources to find help. Links to actual suicide prevention hotlines, ect.--v/r - TP 20:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

    Disagree. Where exactly does this template predict self-harm? 71.198.251.167 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MEDICAL. I also think that any and all comments about "John" are extraordinarily ill-advised. Dandandandandandandan (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete People may write their own talk page notes if they must. Having the template is misguided and makes it open for abuse. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - While I will stipulate that WP is not a mental hospital and can be a rather, shall we say, hostile environment at times, I have no problem with a user wanting to voluntarily put a template on his or her talk page indicating that he or she is experiencing mental health issues, and as such, may not always be in a chipper mood, and may excuse an errant gruff reply. I agree with TP regarding the legal concerns, and do not think that the template should prevent a block (i.e. John Smith has the template on his page so we shouldn't block him for his blatant vandalism earlier), however think that it can engender appropriate sympathy/empathy in the event someone is having a bad day. Even if the template is deleted, there is nothing preventing someone from just writing a note at the top of their talk page indicating a health concern; templates are not always used as a "cry for help", rather as an "indication for some behavior". Go Phightins! 21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This template is not asking for a medical advise. That's why it has absolutely nothing to do with WP:MEDICAL. This template does not predict self-harm. This template is used to ask for understanding. Doctors give medicine, but understanding should be given by the community. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using the template.71.198.251.167 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Closer please note, per WP:ILLEGIT, undisclosed alternative accounts should not vote in deletion debates. Leaky Caldron 17:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    • How do you know this is an "undisclosed alternative account"? TCN7JM 07:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
      • @User:TCN7JM It is patently obvious that this is "somebody". Their 4 edits here are the only contributions from the IP yet they knew enough to find it, discuss it in terms and quote other bits of guidance in a knowledgeable fashion. They do not need to be a disruptive sock to be an undisclosed alternative account as defined in WP:ILLEGIT, but being an undisclosed account is sufficient to preclude their vote (but not their comment). Leaky Caldron 20:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaky, I disagree. Whilst of course "editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus", there is the assumption of innocent-until-proven-guilty (AGF). If you think they might be socking, request an SPI - but don't damn people on an assumption. For example, me! I'm also editing as an IP, and it's probably clear that I've edited in the past. However, I've broken no rules at all. Just, I used to edit Wikipedia (a lot), but stopped years ago. I've recently come back, and chosen to not create an account at this time. There's nothing wrong with that; I'm not deceiving anyone at all. IPs should be welcome to !vote; if you suspect they're "undisclosed alternate accounts" then that should be addressed at the appropriate venue, SPI. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the delete arguments are entirely unconvincing --Guerillero | My Talk 04:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep It's odd that after all this stuff about how WP editors are not qualified to give mental health advice, we are being confidently informed that putting up this template is a "cry for help" and people with suicidal thoughts shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Such comments, in my view, are based on a lack of proper understanding of mental illness, which is a much more varied and complex phenomenon than often recognised. For some people with mental health issues and even suicidal thoughts, Wikipedia may be a coping mechanism - they may use it to escape from the stresses of the "real world" and to distract themselves from negative, even suicidal, thoughts. So in some cases discouraging people with suicidal thoughts or other mental health issues from edit Wikipedia could be very harmful. Of course they should be seeking professional help, but seeking professional help and editing Wikipedia are hardly incompatible, and professional help is unlikely to miraculously solve everything overnight - the will probably still need coping mechanisms for them for some time, at least while they are being treated. If people with mental illness find editing Wikipedia helps them, we should certainly not be discouraging them. It is highly presumptuous for people with no knowledge of the particular circumstances of the case to tell someone with mental illness what they should and shouldn't do.

With regard to this template in particular, I fail to see the issue. The issue of disclosure is a complex one in the area of mental health, being highly context-dependent - not only regarding the environment where the disclosure would be made, but also the circumstances of the person and the mental illness they are suffering. I note the suggestion that people should write a personal statement on their user page instead, but people experiencing mental illness may find it difficult to compose such a statement (it is a sensitive issue that is often not easy to talk about) and easier to use a template instead. The main thing it does is make people aware of the issue - two of the three points are about how people may not be on Wikipedia (ironically, what many editors are recommending people in this situation do) or unable to respond to messages. The other point it notes is that it may affect their behaviour, which may be helpful it other editors perceive something odd about their behaviour. It is not a cry for help or a plea for special immunity from being blocked. It is simply an attempt to communicate medical issues that may have some effect on their editing, just like people with physical illness or injury indicate (or indeed people taking Wikibreaks or reducing their editing for other personal reasons, such as bereavements). Neljack (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep — If it would help us feel better, we could put a notice/disclaimer in the documentation saying that placing this on a user page is for information only, and will not change others' behavior, or something more appropriate, but it may not actually help much if someone just chooses a similar template, instead. —PC-XT+ 09:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:National members of the International Federation for Equestrian Sports

Template:National members of the International Federation for Equestrian Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As the events and disciplines should not be linked in the template as it is supposed to be about the members (and per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL), the benefits of a navigation box with only 5 active links and about 50 dead links (also see WP:NOTRED) are dubious. How do we know that this is a full set, or even that it is notable when this information isn't even mentioned in the article (which would be a much more appropriate place for this kind of table anyway)? However, it could be cleaned up to show only the appropriate and active links like this. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• reformat as suggested, to remove the red links. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a clear WP:DONOTDEMOLISH situation and a bleedover from a rather heated discussion about several navboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture#Breed navboxes. The nav box is to links for national governing organizations for equestrian sport. It is a set and WP:NOTRED clearly allows an exception for sets and series of articles. The article not having a complete list is not a RS for notability; see official source). This is not an appropriate topic for TfD. Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination is irrational. Thincat (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Snow keep, and apply a trout for an inappropriate and POINTy nomination - "deletion is not cleanup". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No, not pointy, inappropriate or irrational at all. The events and disciplines links do not belong due to them not being covered by the subject of the navbox, and not following WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Once you've removed them, all you have left are the various groups and countries, of which 5 out of approximately 100 have articles. This sea of redlinks is not a useful navigational aid to find five live links, and the five links barely meets the bright line of WP:NENAN. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • A bright line is just that; and even just five clearly satisfies it. You should drop the stick. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, happy to drop it if we reduce to my suggested compromise. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep If there's too many red links for now just delink a few of them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • So you'd be okay with this version? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep —PC-XT+ 01:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Defunct USL Pro squad templates

Template:Antigua Barracuda squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:VSI Tampa Bay FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both teams folded after the 2013 season. – Michael (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete both - if both teams have folded then there is no need for 'current squad' templates - as there are no current squads! GiantSnowman 12:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete both - per GS, no longer required. Fenix down (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)