Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 26 April 28 >

April 27

[edit]

Template:School block

[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Izkala (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:School block with Template:Anonblock.
Add the part about class projects to the anonblock template and redirect this to anonblock. For one thing, there's no way we could identify every school in existence as a school IP (and anonblock gets used on some IPs that we know are school IPs). For another thing, having this separate template to point out "this is a school" does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. This template does nothing anonblock doesn't do. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 23:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't answer how having a separate template helps the encyclopedia. If anything, it's a borderline personal attack, saying "you little rascals are childish, that's why we had to block you all." That theory also would explain why sysops are using anonblock on universities; they have more respect for university students (Florida Gulf Coast University seems to be an exception) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Growing tired of this project day by day. 17:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{Shared IP edu}} does that just fine. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors. 06:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that just tells that it is a shared edu-IP, this tells that the far majority (if not all) of the edits from this (school-)IP are vandalism and that therefore the user has been blocked. It is a good combination/merger between {{Anonblock}} and {{Shared IP edu}}, and is as such quite different (both in purpose as in information) from them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
School "children" who probably know more about technology than the average adult reading the anonblock template, you mean... There's a reason why I said merge vs. delete; Anonblock could take a few lessons from this school template. If tech savvy teens need simpler language, don't you think some 80 year old man at a public library needs simpler language? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors. 05:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further rebuttal - You gave me a great idea! Since students need a belittling template with a school house on it because it is more understandable, lets make a template that's easier for middle eastern POV-pushers to understand. Introducting MiddleEastBlock! It uses similar language as the school block template and also has the block reason written in Arabic, so it's easier for them to understand. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors. 04:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The additional information resides in just the distinction you seem so desperate to remove: i.e., that this is recognized as a range used by a school and not some other random type of provider, which suggests different avenues for dealing with it on both sides.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Mosque block", "Christian church block", "Jewish temple block" - really? I'm approaching a crisis in assuming good faith here.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PCHS-NJROTC: Something, something, something WP:POINTy. Are you willing to G7 those or should I create a TfD? ~ RobTalk 05:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first 3 of your batch of new templates may have potential, but the ones for mosques and churches etc. will be very difficult to find usage. What are these folks doing at a church editing Wikipedia? "Church IPs" are certainly not as shared or as prevalent. Whereas schools generally refers to public institutions with known IPs where Internet browsing and research is part of the educational experience. Surely the reason {{School block}} was made was to have a template that can be used for a non-negligible percentage of disruptive IPs registered to education establishments. We're trying to target decent chunks of behavior (what templates are for). (If admins keep your templates, they may consider renaming "Jewish temple block" to "Synagogue block", and rename "church block", because many religions' buildings are not called churches.)

      In short, I support not merging {{School block}}, deleting a few of the new templates that will be difficult to target for use, and possibly rewording School block to be a bit softer in tone so it's more suitable for cases where young editors who are genuinely curious about contributing and being inadvertently disruptive are not scared away. Hope this helps. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:56, 12 May 2016 (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).

*(Comment I have just undone what I regard as an entirely premature and unrepresentative closure by Izkala.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Flora and fauna in Gibraltar

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izkala (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, and the template contains too many links and redlinks. I believe a list with references would be better, and if the content was referenced I'd say "listify" or "split and listify", but that's not the case. jonkerz ♠talk 19:06, 27 April 2016 (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).

Template:Animals tracks

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete all per precedent. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to navboxes for these albums, as per precedent. Navigational boxes already exist for all of these. ~ RobTalk 16:33, 27 April 2016 (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).

Template:Unicode2

[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. I will subst the remaining transclusions before deleting. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template been "under development" for 5+ years. Since {{Unicode}} has been deprecated and slated for deletion, this one should go too. ~ RobTalk 16:23, 27 April 2016 (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).

Template:2016OlympicFieldHockeySchedule

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete (non-admin closure). ~ RobTalk 05:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template not currently being used, as it was used on only one article where it was replaced with a wikitable. No need for a template used on only one article. Qed237 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2016 (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).

Template:Red Star Belgrade squad 1991 European Cup Final

[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).

The result of the discussion was Not enough participation to achieve a rough consensus. Deeming unlikely to get further results with relisting. The template is being used as intended. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not standard practice to have templates for squads that have reached finals. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_27&oldid=1142528670"