Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 7

This infobox is an inappropriate and unnecessary fork of Template:Infobox civil conflict created for use in a single new article (Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. The template adds new parameters (notably, the medium, the works from each party, the allegations made by each party, and it is adapted to the multi-image display used in similar infoboxes), and, as mentioned in the talk page, it could (and should) reasonably be used for interpersonal conflicts where an infobox is needed but {{Infobox civil conflict}} is not appropriate. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m for keeping this infobox unless Template:Infobox civil conflict is broadened to stop squabbles like this in the future. I agree that it is redundant, though. Lightcrowd (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see how it is redundant as many of the parameters are simply not present in the other template. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Infoboxes only work if they contain unambiguous facts. Feuds almost always have vague start and end dates and people switching sides. The "allegations" section in the only article this is used in contains enough prose that it seemingly defeats the purpose of having an infobox in the first place. Also, it's not at all clear what the inclusion criteria is for being in someone's "party". Did J. Cole ever explicitly identify himself as having sided with Drake? Should Boi-1da be in Drake's party since he produced some of his diss tracks? Did A$AP Rocky provide military support for Kendrick? The Midnite Wolf (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Mach61 NAADAAN (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the topic covered by this infobox is very distinct from infobox civil conflict. This isn't just for rap feuds, this could be longstanding sports rivalries, squabbles between important people, pretty much any major controversy between two individuals, this infobox could see alot of use. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep infoboxes are in general a net benefit to articles, most likely as the world continues this infobox will be used in more and more settings. Klaudeman (talk)

Strong Keep, I was considering making this infobox a few months ago after I approved the article Drake-Kanye feud at WP:AfC. We have dozens of articles in Category:Individual rivalries in sports that could use this. Mach61 23:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(that being said, I do think the "allegations" parameter should be removed) Mach61 00:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of cases like Carlsen–Niemann controversy when adding it, but it's true that it might be too subjective and could be removed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. It is true that it's only on one article but there are several that it can be added to. Furthermore, using the civil conflict infobox on the Kendrick-Drake article would start another talk page war which I would like to avoid. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An infobox for petty feuds makes no sense. It will just lead to WP:FANCRUFT. It's also fairly tabloid-y. Other editors have suggested this could be used for individual sports rivalries but that's ridiculous. Like gee I wonder who the involved parties are in the Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry. Or what would you put as the start and end date? What was the date when they transitioned from being good friends/teammates to intensely competitive win-at-all-costs-even-if-I-take-down-my-teammate teammates? What would you list as involved works? Every single grand prix they competed in as Mercedes teammates? What would you put as the main allegations or causes? What is the medium? Auto racing? What about the Competition between Airbus and Boeing? Or 2010 Tonight Show conflict? The information is so subjective in these types of things that an infobox would not be an appropriate way to summarize it. These types of petty feuds and rivalries have never really needed an infobox unless there it was protracted and/or led to physical confrontation/violence. The fact of the matter is people want to play this up like it's some significant war that'll change the war but quite frankly neither K.dot nor Drake has released a track in the a couple days and it's already dying out. And I'm saying all this as someone who's had a userbox on their userpage that says all articles should have infoboxes. Maybe I should get rid of it now. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:6TeamBracket-Gauntlet-MLBB

Template:6TeamBracket-Gauntlet-MLBB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to {{4TeamBracket-2Elim-StepladderPlayIn|rounds=5}} – Pbrks ^(t·c) 20:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-cyberbully

Template:Uw-cyberbully (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template doesn't make any sense. How on earth would it be possible to use a wikipedia account to cyberbully other individuals outside of Wikipedia - the only place wikipedia accounts can be used is WMF sites. If someone is harassing people on other sites this would almost always have to be dealt with via the arbitration committee, due to WP:OUTING, rather than being handled on a talk page. Finally this duplicates the existing Uw-harass series of templates. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posting rude remarks against other people. See WP:CYBERBULLYING. Oppose. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the {{Uw-npa1}} family of templates for warning people about leaving rude comments. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Standard offer info

Template:Standard offer info (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A very badly written block notice template that duplicates the information provided in another block template while provideing a load of incorrect information in an extremely patronising tone. The editor who wrote this doesn't appear to understand the policies they were writing about because this template contains a load of blatantly incorrect information, e.g. claiming that all indefinite blocks have a 6 month delay before they can be appealed, claiming that the standard offer does not apply to community bans, and claiming that socking will result in an automatic community ban (is would result in a WP:3X ban). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This explicity talks JUST about the SO. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information in this template is (a) wrong, (b) written in a tone that is inappropriate for a block message and (c) unnecessary - if an admin thinks that someone should follow the standard offer to be unblocked they will just leave a short note to the effect of "Please see the standard offer for the path for you to be unblocked" when declining an unblock request. I don't see any situations where this template would be useful. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2024 Copa América de Futsal Bracket

Template:2024 Copa América de Futsal Bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use template for 2024 FIFA Futsal World Cup qualification. Already implemented directly in the article. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 19:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Biu–Mandara languages, Template:East Chadic languages, Template:Masa languages and Template:West Chadic languages with Template:Chadic languages.
The reason I think the latter three navigational templates, and possibly also {{Biu–Mandara languages}}, should be merged into a new template called {{Chadic languages}}, is because the four language sub-families are related to each other and because I personally think that {{Masa languages}}, and possibly {{East Chadic languages}} and {{West Chadic languages}}, are too small to be separate. PK2 (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem by the amount of links that the new template will be pretty big. Large navigation templates aren't really user-friendly. Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, all templates except {{Masa languages}} are already pretty large, and merging them all into one template would be unwieldy. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chadic languages navigational templates