Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19

edit

Template:Uw-dttr2

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barely-used "templates" which you can use to complain about being "templated". Ironic/humorous depending on your point of view, and surplus to {{dttr}}. Nigej (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth redirecting? Also added {{Uw-dttr4im}} to the discussion per comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. The warning itself (even at the base version) is just nonsense. Experienced editors are not exempt from anything, including templates. Redirects shouldn't be used just because we can. There is absolutely no value in redirecting here. Gonnym (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User templates make it easy for people to raise concerns and this template acts to inhibit that. Gusfriend (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep I've used these templates, myself. That they have become less popular isn't a reason for deletion. There is a real cultural loss in our community if we start to strip away things like this, and for what utility? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uw-dttr4im, marginal delete other two. All except dttr1 are pointless if used seriously. dttr1 is borderline, and may cause more conflict than it solves, but it is a long-standing part of wiki history, and should not be bundled here, but treated separately. However, it is impossible to use dttr4im seriously, it is purely a joke. The joke is the fact that it exists in the warning template series, not it's wording, so it would be pointless to userfy. The cost of keeping it is zero; the benefit of keeping it is a marginal increase in lightheartedness on the project (something increasingly in short supply). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "...barely used" signifies that they are used - just sparingly. Unless the proposer can indicate that the use causes conflict or even a sense of grievance, then allow those few who know who will accept being templated to refrain from templating others to continue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uw-dttr4im: I am indifferent about the other 2 templates. However I find the idea that you are using a standard tempate response as a block warning against editiors hilarious, you can't fight stupid with more stupid, while it isn't a policy I aggree with the sentiment of WP:DTR but you can't start enforcing essays with blocks. You might catch a warning for WP:CIVIL as a part of WP:Don't template the regulars if you are egregious with handing responses out, but I don't see Uw-dttr4im providing anything apart from a counter argument at WP:AN for the original offenders against the person who places this notice, which could cause both parties to get warned by Admins?... Terasail[✉️] 16:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'm glad you find it hilarious, that was the intent. Second, if you re-read the template you will see that it does not threaten anyone with a block, which seems to be the main reason you support deletion of this one? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that I still oppose this template (Delete/Rename/Recat) for the reason that its easy to take the wrong way (As I just did), it has the chance to cause unnecessary confusion and it would be better to userify for anyone who wishes to have a good joke while removing prominence of this since it isn't a user warning that should be mixed in with the others. Terasail[✉️] 16:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the last badgering I'll do, but I really take issue with the idea that "it has a chance to cause unnecessary confusion", since it has not done so in the 11 years since it was created. No one will attempt to use this as a serious warning, ever. No one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely get your perspective on it I just personally disagree with the idea of it being misued, you definitely weakened my opposition to keeping the template but I'm not going to completely reverse my stanse on it. Sometimes jokes land and sometimes they don't and this one just misses for me. Terasail[✉️] 17:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that dttr4im has been thru TFD before: in 2015. Result was no consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WHIMSY. I realize not everyone will get the joke (that they're templates telling you not to use templates), but fortunately we're still allowed (for now, at least) to communicate with other editors by using levity instead of being Stern And Serious all the time. 28bytes (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unhelpful silliness; each of these has been substituted either once or zero times, making their pointlessness apparent. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is it really a requirement now for all templates to be utilitarian, dull and humorless? Have the template standards become so narrow, predictable and set in stone that any divergence must be eliminated? I'm all for getting rid of information that might be confusing to editors but this purging of anything less than absolutely pragmatic and serious really takes the human element out of the project. It would be one thing if these templates appeared in main space but they are for User space, you know, where people communicate with each other.
At some point in the future, we might be able to specify the subject parameters and have AI editors generate flawless templates which are perfect but I think eliminating the quirks in the project is, well, just really sad. I'm sure this is not an approved rationale for keeping a page but I just wanted to share my opinion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is the definition of "humor". I find these, and the various whale-esque templates, more cringey than funny. At present I'm sure that your theoretical AI editors can generate better humor. Gonnym (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Liz. I was leaning towards weak delete for this one, as templating regulars for templating regulars does not make sense. However, "warning templates", and for that matter, "templates" in general, are tending to sound increasingly robotic. Plus, taking into account Floquenbeam's point, absolutely no-one is going to use these for serious matters. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 22:45, 27 March 2022 (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).

Kyiv Metro s-line templates

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{s-line}} templates for the Kyiv Metro; replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Kyiv Metro. Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2022 (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:Editnotices/Page/Rokka: Braves of the Six Flowers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editnotice is no longer valid (There have been no new episodes since 2015). Therefore should be removed and deleted. Terasail[✉️] 18:54, 19 March 2022 (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:Liechtensteiner princesses by birth

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After removing two generations of unsourced, non-notable people per WP:EXISTING, WP:BLP, and WP:NAVBOX, there is just a single entry in this template. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2022 (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:Tropical cyclone classification

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this template needs some input from the community, as I am not sure that this template can be made to be as accurate, as it should be without containing any original research. The template was originally created based on WMO document which had converted all of the scales to 10-minute sustained winds. However, we had numerous complaints that the winds for the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale were not right, as the scale is based on 1-minute sustained wind speeds. As a result, 1-minute winds were added in while the rest of the categories were aligned to ensure that they were accurate. However, if we are adding in 1-minute wind speeds then we should be adding in 3-minute sustained wind speeds as the scale used by the India Meteorological Department is based on 3-minute sustained winds. Its probably plausible to add them in but looking on the talk page, I see suggestions to add in various other scales, which I feel would lead to the template being further inaccurate. I also note that I am not the only one who feels that some of the information in this template is inaccurate as @ABC paulista: commented on the talkpage this evening about the classifications for Australia and the South Pacific. As a result, I sadly feel that the deletion of this template would be the best option. Jason Rees (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2022 (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:Premier Service

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused on Premier Service and spot-check of current timetables shows discrepancies. Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2022 (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://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_19&oldid=1081770675"