Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 27

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]

• Template:School block (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Anonblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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]

• Comment: Prime examples of why we don't need to templates: University of South Florida /16 range and Miami University NAT IP were blocked with anonblock when they should have been blocked with schoolblock. As such, the useful information on the schoolblock template, which apparently would have been quite applicable in the USF case, was not seen. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 05:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anecdotal evidence of occasional failure to use these templates where they might otherwise have been used does not mean that they are not generally useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 28 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]

• Keep useful for identifying schools and for admins what to do when the block expires (and the vandalism starts again). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:04, 2 May 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]

• Merge. Redundant to {{anonblock}} and {{Shared IP edu}}. ~ Rob^Talk 05:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dirk's argument. I'd also argue that school children might find the message easier to understand than the more technical one about IP addresses. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:14, 5 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]

• Comment There's not a single one of these keep votes which I haven't refuted. It seems like most of the keepers are just having trouble admitting that their template with the pretty school house on it is redundant, but the fact is it's belittling to the users of these IPs. Bear in mind a good portion of our article content has cone from people who are users of these IPs; even if we have to block them for abuse there is no sense belittling anyone there who clicks the edit button. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors.} 05:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The school template has information related to specifically to educational institutions (such as class projects) that would be irrelevant in the majority of IP blocks. clpo13_(talk) 20:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be merged into anonblock; there is no way to recognize all school IPs as school IPs, and I see anonblock getting used on school IPs that we recognize as school IPs even. By including this in anonblock, school users will see this information even if their IP is not tagged as belonging to a school. It's not going to kill non-school IP users to read a sentence or two about what to do if someone needs to edit for a school project. I sense another person who's afraid their pretty school house template is going to go away, because I already pointed this issue out, and people are still grasping at straws to keep the template. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors.} 03:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snide comments, even when set in small font, are unlikely to make anyone come around to your point of view. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If so, how is Donald Trump doing so well? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors.} 21:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More information on background/circumstances of block = better for both admins on this side and sysops on the other. Minor inconsistencies in use so far are hardly an indication of functional failure. Anyone who feels 'belittled' by the icon probably shouldn't expose their tender skin to the rarefied air of a collaborative project.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cookie cutter school block template does absolutely nothing to provide any background information about the block at all so I don't see how your vote here means anything. Admins should use the comments section to document the details, and labeling IPs as a school or an Islamic Mosque in the comments does nothing to help the project, but I suppose sysops are free to do that if they want. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors.} 22:52, 11 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]

•  Administrator note Edit request to add TFD notice to school block was completed just now. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A lot of people want to keep this for whatever reason, so just as we did when I previously proposed the merging of the shared templates, I have created several similar templates. See {{Government block}}, {{Corporate block}}, {{Public terminal block}}, {{Mosque block}}, {{Christian church block}}, and {{Jewish temple block}}. I also proposed some changes to {{School block}} on its talk page. Comments on this? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors.} 01:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC Just made {{Church block}} to cover the religions I didn't cover with a different template. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors.} 01:38, 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? ~ Rob^Talk 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]

    • I've Tfd'd the whole lot of new templates - will hardly be used and indeed very pointy to start with. A (perceived) problem is not solved with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:28, 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).

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]

• Template:Flora and fauna in Gibraltar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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]

• delete, way too big and no source. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep might encourage the creation of more articles. Ninefive6 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I created the template to encourage people to create articles for the plants, however I also created List of plants in the Gibraltar Botanic Gardens to do the same, as long as one of them survives I'm happy. John Cummings (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Far too large to provide useful navigation. Better as a list, which already exists per the above. ~ Rob^Talk 05:41, 5 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).

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]

• Template:Animals tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Atom Heart Mother tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:The Dark Side of the Moon tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:The Division Bell tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:The Final Cut tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:A Momentary Lapse of Reason tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Obscured by Clouds tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:The Piper at the Gates of Dawn tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:A Saucerful of Secrets tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ummagumma tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:The Wall tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Wish You Were Here tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to navboxes for these albums, as per precedent. Navigational boxes already exist for all of these. ~ Rob^Talk 16:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and precedent. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No other major band has track listings but Pink Floyd. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:10, 5 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).

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:Unicode2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

• Delete. Unused in the main namespace, and not a suitable solution to the problem. BabelStone (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; anything that's been left fallow that long's probably a good candidate for deletion. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:15, 5 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).

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). ~ Rob^Talk 05:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2016OlympicFieldHockeySchedule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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]

• Template:Red Star Belgrade squad 1991 European Cup Final (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is not standard practice to have templates for squads that have reached finals. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mattythewhite: Isn't in common place to have templates for the winners? This squad won the European Cup in 1991. ~ Rob^Talk 05:43, 5 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).