Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 5

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Nav Couples for Christ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Doesn't make any sense to have a navbox with 85% redlinks. I just edited the template but it used to include an external link to the group's website! I know that's a side issue but all four articles appearing as blue links in this navbox are glorification pieces with as little objectivity as you can afford without getting speedy deleted as spam.. Pichpich (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - True, that's a bit too red for my liking. What's the point of a navigation box that navigates to nowhere? – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 06:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom. Snappy56 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Ah, well now I understand. I guess that's okay, since most of the links there are still nonexistent. So, go ahead. However, Pichpich, since you've pointed out that the articles are "glorification pieces with as little objectivity as you can afford without getting speedy deleted as spam", why don't you do something to make it more objective and less glorifying? The least you could have done is to state your concerns in a constructive manner, because your actions were frightening, and I thought experienced users shouldn't frighten newcomers. :-) Athrun Atreides (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:UAA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Worse than useless template that inhibits the proper functioning of WP:UAA. Every single response this template produces is inferior to simply removing the report and using an appropriate edit summary. Since a username is either bad enough to block or it's not, these reports need to be simply processed and removed. Mangojuice^talk 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Totally unnecessary. All it does is add one more layer of editing to the process. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary and unattractive, not to mention forcing the universe of comments into a narrow set of templated responses. Much better to just state in plain language what you want to say. I disagree with Mangojuice that the choices are either block or remove; comments definitely have a place in UAA listings, especially third-party opinions. But they don't need to be templated. --MCB (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, third party opinions and limited discussion is appropriate, but that's not what this template is really all about. It does have the {{UAA|q}} option but no one really uses that in my experience. Mangojuice^talk 02:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Simply because you've never seen it used doesn't mean it isn't. We had that argument over {{2nd chance}}: you're not stalking UAA 24/7, and other admins could very well find it useful and use it for that purpose. Helping highlight the need for quick discussion is partly what this template is for, and I'm not really sure you understand that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• In that case, I will simply remove the modes of this that should be replaced by removing the report, but I'll leave the "Question" mode in place. Mangojuice^talk 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• The way you're interpreting how this template should be used, that would be everything except "question". If you have a suggestion as to how the template can be improved, go ahead, but if you're just going to hack it to bits so it's effectively deleted, don't waste our time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This template is based off of {{AIV}}, which serves as a way to leave a quick note for A) other admins to let them know a name is being handled, B) the reporter to show them at a glance why their report was declined or C) highlight a concern regarding a borderline report that should be addressed before it is removed or blocked. With the recent changes to the username policy, we are being encouraged to be a little more lenient with usernames, and it is a waste of time for an admin to check someone's talk page just to find someone else has already put {{uw-username}} on there. We also frequently get reports from new users who do not fully understand the policy - when the page gets backlogged, which happens frequently, it's inefficient and possibly damaging to the project to take time out from reviewing the backlogged reports to leave a detailed note why a username is not a violation. A quick template note can make that obvious and clear to both reporter and admins, and doesn't take much time away from handling things. In the future, the helper bots could be programmed to recognize certain types of this template, and remove old requests after a few minutes, in a manner similar to how the {{RFPP}} archiver bot works. I admit I am slightly biased as the creator of this template, but I do strongly feel that this is far from "worse than useless" and rather makes UAA easier to use and prevents timewasting. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• What is a waste of time is for someone to put a {{uw-username}} warning on a user's talk page and then leave the listing on WP:UAA with a note from this template. These should be removed. Reports that belong elsewhere should be removed. Reports that should not be blocked right away because the user hasn't edited should be removed. WP:RFPP is archived for good reason, but WP:UAA (and WP:AIV) are not and probably never will be archived, because they are too high-volume and specific cases do not come up repeatedly. Mangojuice^talk 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't say they would be archived - I said the bots could be set to recognize when one of these templates was added and remove it automatically after a set time (5-10 minutes, say) as they do with all the ones that get blocked. Also, discussing things with the user isn't a shield against them getting blocked - if they ignore the request, a block may still be in order. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Check out Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over and see if you can find any people who have actually entered discussion, let alone in the first few minutes. Leaving these reports up would do nothing beneficial but ask all admins patrolling WP:UAA to investigate something that will be empty almost all the time, and in the few cases it's not, will probably not lead to any action. IMO, if you leave the warning, you need to watch for a reply, or you're dropping the ball. And in any case, even if the user ignored the warning and continued editing, the report would not belong at WP:UAA but at WP:RFCN. Mangojuice^talk 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• How is that a problem with this template? You're pointing out a completely unrelated problem; we can't force users to communicate, and I am fully aware that many don't, however that doesn't mean that nobody does. If someone is actually looking to edit here, and does choose a questionable name, they will respond, and probably in a timely manner. Leaving the warning does not mean the username is not a violation, it just means the admin who first saw it is willing to assume good faith, and give them a chance before blocking provided they're not ignored. It does not prevent them from being blocked, hence why the report should remain, at least for a time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful for other admins to get second opinions, for non-admins to voice opinions, and is generally a net positive. Why get rid of something that causes no problems? Malinaccier (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• It encourages people to misuse WP:UAA. I have frequently had to clean up entries that should have been removed from the list because the responder used this template instead of dealing with things properly. Also, at best this encourages things to be discussed on the noticeboard which is inappropriate. Mangojuice^talk 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, how does telling people what they've done wrong encourage them to do wrong? I'm confused. I would think that failing to explain why a report doesn't belong there would do more harm than replying to it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Most people who report things at WP:UAA do so with Twinkle and don't go back to check on the names they reported. And in any case, they would have to check the edit history to see why those reports are no longer there -- whether they were blocked or whether someone removed it. So edit summaries do this just fine, and don't leave reports up creating a backlog. If a user is really doing things wrong with WP:UAA they need to be told directly about it. Mangojuice^talk 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• So how is this different than AIV, then? We get a lot of reports there that either aren't vandalism or belong somewhere else - heck, I've even seen protection requests there - but I don't see you raising a stink about how it's run. Is this because the bots remove stale reports when no action is taken after a time? If so, I'd say that's something we need to work with the bot operators on, not deleting things that could be potentially useful. And again, leaving a report up gives other administrators a chance to double-check some of the names. What one person may not consider a blatant violation, another might. Nobody's going to police the history and review every block or decline made - using this template and not clearing things allows for admins to double-check each other and make sure they're making the right decisions. Consensus works for us too - it's not called "Usernames that should be unilaterally reviewed", it's "Usernames for admin attention". Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. All the arguments here would apply just as readily to T:AIV. We had discussions there before the template, so it didn't create that problem. As for "reports that belong elsewhere should be removed", the only "elsewhere" appropriate is RFC/UN, and I just can't see us cluttering that page up with discussions over accounts that have never edited and probably never will. What, exactly, do you mean by "dealing with things properly" ... blocking them? We get enough borderline cases that most admins have realized that there needs to be some small consensus before blocking away. I know I've certainly caught enough flack over username blocks, enough that I like having some input from other admins and leaving things up there that I'm not sure about. If there is a case for anything here, it's for changing the way UAA works, not deleting what I've found to be a very useful template for, as Hersfold says, quickly assessing another admin's opinion. Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dealing with them properly means: (1) If you feel a block is appropriate, block. (2) If you feel like a block is not appropriate, remove the report and take whatever alternative action (moving the report, starting a discussion, whatever) you feel is appropriate. (3) If you're not sure, either don't address the report at all, or leave it up with a comment explaining your thoughts. But #3 should be rare -- WP:UAA is after all for usernames that need immediate blocking, not for borderline cases: borderline cases should simply be removed from WP:UAA and dealt with some other way. In any case, none of these procedures involve this template. Mangojuice^talk 16:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is called "usernames for administrator attention", not "usernames for possible blocking". Since I have seen my judgement on this issue questioned more than once, I like having this template to give other admins a better clue as to what I'm thinking and why. Are corporate-matching usernames block-worthy? It depends on whether they've edited promotionally or not. Some admins block those on sight. I don't anymore.

It really seems like the problem you're pointing to goes higher than this template. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your judgment is fine, Daniel. All these cases where you leave the user a warning template, your judgment is just fine and other admins are going to respect it, so you should just remove those reports. In cases where you aren't sure, yes, please either leave it alone or leave a comment, but that's not what you've been doing with this template. Mangojuice^talk 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, but I usually move on to other tasks or actual editing after making an initial review. I think most of us feel we have more important things to do than hang out on UAA all day (and no, I'm not implying you do). Since I fully expect that other admins will review these (and yes, I have removed "discussing with ..."s that have not received any further comment after some time), I want some way for them to know what I was thinking. Wikipedia works as much on collaboration between administrators as editors. This helps facilitate it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Portsmouth 1939 FA Cup Team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a reworking of Template:1939 FA Cup Winners already listed for deletion below. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above and below. – PeeJay 18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, too many templates. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Manchester United F.C. 1998-99 Champions League Winners (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Football squad templates should only exist for current club squads and national World Cup squads. — – PeeJay 09:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should accept these templates. Soon, we might end up with too many confusing templates and it will not be helpful to anyone. Probably, a separate page on important matches in the game of football could be included. - - User:thebigbee

• Delete as pointless. Just imagine the bottom of Real Madrid with all templates like this. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete absolutely pointless just go to the relevant final article to see who won NapHit (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 23:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sportin Templetes for Champions League Winners are useful and interesting. We have keep the templates for NBA champions i can see no difference. My country Greece have competed at World cup in 1994 (Argentina-Greece 4-0, Bulgaria-Greece 4-0, Nigeria-Greece 2-0). If there is a template for that team we must keep the template for a Champions League Winner. I believe that pages for players like Pele and Zidane can have equal templates as Michael Jordan
  • Just because something exists somewhere else doesn't mean that this template should be kept. Please try to judge each case on its own merits. – PeeJay 11:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think this page is really important for football lovers, its not every final that has a result turn-around in the last 3 minutes so this is a mark of respect too. Just keep it.
  • To be honest, the 1999 final was one of the worst football matches I've ever seen, and I'm a Man Utd fan! Anyway, what does the stature of the match have to do with whether a template for the winners should exist or not? – PeeJay 11:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. We will have an unmanageable set of templates at some pages if a similar template is created for every championship team. And I cannot see the need to navigate around the players that once played in the same team. It is a good idea to highlight certain events in the career of a player, but I would prefer an infobox solution or similar, rather than having navigation boxes at the bottom of the page. --Kildor (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Too many templates. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Too many squad templates should be avoided, but I think the Champions League is a special case. Its international element makes it notable, as opposed to domestic cup and titles which might not have worldwide notability.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Sportin Of course we are talking only for the Champions League Winners from 1956, (51 templates) no 2nd place, semifinalists, participants etc. 11 May 2008

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.