Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 10

< April 9	April 11 >

April 10[edit]

Template:BucsCoach[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 debate was keep Makes sense for these articles to have their own (smaller) template. Many other examples, including for association football manager templates. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tampa Bay Buccaneers already has the head coaches on there.. Buc (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2008 (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:Temporary userpage[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 debate was Delete. The main rationale for this is the initial nominator's point: this template does not handle the deletion of a Wikipedian's userpage in a way that is either sensitive or considerate–even if that editor has been indefinitely blocked. To address the technical concerns, a simple addition of the code [[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages]] will suffice to have the userpage deleted.

Whilst I have not see any instances of the template being inappropriately used, and cannot speak for or against those concerns, I can see merit in that: the possibility of the template being used to, perhaps, cause hurt or drive an editor away is yet another argument in favour of deletion. In all, the arguments for redundancy to a simple categorisation in CAT:TEMP have achieved rough consensus, and I am closing this discussion as "delete". Anthøny 12:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is no longer needed as admins either place a block tag on the page, automatically putting the user talk page into CAT:TEMP, or users can manually add the cat without the text. The text is bitey and has been used against users that aren't even blocked sometimes. I would say that this template is more misused than used constructively. The talk pages should only be deleted if a user is indef blocked, and if they are, a block tag should add this page to the correct cat, or if needs be, a manual entry can be used. — Ryan Postlethwaite 15:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with ryans rationale. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - per discussion at Template talk:Temporary userpage, Category talk:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin...well.2C_not_abuse...regarding_spam_talk_pages. Tag is often used incorrectly and there are no clear instructions for it's use. It used to exist to tag pages of trolls without giving them a big orange indef blocked tag, but as per nom Cat can be added manually (According to discussion on talk page, this may have once been a hidden cat, but no longer is so the point is moot). As the tag is properly used in a few cases, it might be worthwhile to replace it with an indef blocked tag when orphaning, but this would require checking to make sure user was indef blocked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, Ryan's got a good point. I just can't really see a logical reason for it. нмŵוτн τ 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and comments above. If kept, it severely needs re-wording/re-writing. - jc37 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination by Ryan Postlethwaite, and the absence of a usage direction. Although I often delete CAT:TEMP pages, this template is already unnecessary because of the {{uw-ublock}} or {{uw-block3}} automatic inclusion of the page in the category. Rudget (review) 17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template has no good purpose. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there's already a procedure in place then having this secondary method will derail the processes and befuddle the mind :) . --Pmedema (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some might know that I'm trying to push towards not always deleting such pages (depending on the situation). However, even if I disregard how I feel about that, this template really isn't needed from a technical standpoint. It's just as easy to put in the category directly if one wishes to use it outside of a block template. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its redundant, {{indefblockeduser}}, {{usernameblock}}, and {{VOAblock}} already take care of this. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 11:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mmm, I use it once in a while, see User talk:Cayman Islands Civil Service College, and User talk:Gorillapoop, when the user is indef blocked, but the block notice would either add nothing to the conversation, or be uselessly bitey. If people abuse the template, warn them, but I don't think using a manual entry will do much good if the practice stands, anyway. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the indef blocked templates are unnecessarily "bitey", then perhaps we could work on editing the text of those? - jc37 13:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a need to bite the user when you block him for a lot of reasons, but adding a big template on User talk:Cayman Islands Civil Service College would be counterproductive (they might believe they are blocked again, as a user). -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But on the converse, since they're not indef blocked, why are we suggesting to delete their talk page? It would appear to be useful information, to me... - jc37 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, it appears that User:Cayman_Islands_Civil_Service_College is indef blocked, but User:Gorillapoop is not blocked at all. That's part of the problem, this tag is inappropriately used. It should be clear to anyone looking at the page that the user is indef blocked and if on investigation of the logs it is found that the user is not actually blocked, the tag should be removed. No problem with making less bitey tags but that's something to take up at WP:UW or some such place.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gorillapoop has been unblocked after being tagged (good catch). The tag is just a easy way to populate the cat (since the nominator doesn't think this is a bad practice to do so by hand), while explaining what it means. This is definitely not a User Warning. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that WP:UW covers everything at WP:UTM, including block tags, but maybe a different project handles that, I just meant, toning down the tags or making a new, less bitey one is something that would be good to bring up with that project.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the "useful information" people keep going on about is what, exactly? "Your only edit has been speedily deleted"? Because that's the only thing on 99% of such pages I put the tag on.--Calton | Talk 10:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this actually has some useful purpose that I'm not aware of. Having read the WP:ANI thread about it, consensus seems to be against it. Terraxos (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly ordinary housekeeping tag used for perfectly ordinary housekeeping tasks. Nomination seems to be part of some peculiar obsession to keep useless pages in perpetuity, because...well, no one's actually said, other than DISRUPTION! DISRUPTION! BOOGETY BOOGETY! --Calton | Talk 10:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, read the talk page for this template. It is for indef blocked users! There has been plenty of discussion of this, but maybe you should put in your 2cents here: Wikipedia_talk:User_page#Proposal_to_not_delete_talk_pages_for_all_indef_users. I don't take a position on the deletion of the pages only on the necessity of this tag and the inappropriateness of your tagging with it pages of users who aren't blocked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, not convinced by the rationales given that there is any need to delete. -- Naerii 11:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There were 846 pages linked to {{temporary userpage}}, I have deleted 528 as either 1) duplicative to an indef blocked tag, or 2) placed on the page of a non-indef blocked user. All of these plus another 100 or so that are indef blocked and don't have another tag were tagged by one editor. I started this before this discussion ensued, but hopefully it will help with orphaning if that becomes necessary.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This tag is being inappropriately used, which caused myself and others to look at the reason that we even have this tag. Unable to come up with anything, there is no reason to keep it around. The purpose and use for this tag has been superseded by many indefblocked tags, such as {{indefblocked}}, which automatically adds users to the category. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2008 (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:TEMPLATENAME[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 debate was Speedy delete.--Aervanath (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem useful. It is used by one user in his own space, and not used correctly.. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 08:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems a good candidate for CSD T3; if not, then delete it through TfD. Completely pointless. ><RichardΩ6 12 09:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1/T3, makes absolutely no sense. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 11:41, 11 April 2008 (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.