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.
Delete. If none of the many festival articles feel it's worthy of inclusion, neither do I. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:46, 5 September 2013 (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.
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.
These talk page templates both fall afoul of CSD #T2 (misrepresentations of policy), and in my opinion quite possibly of WP:USEENGLISH as well, but of course this is likely to be controversial, so I have declined to mark them for speedy deletion. The templates in question assert that you must have a certain opinion about the transgendered, that you must express only that opinion on talk pages, that editors not expressing these opinions should be Reported To The Authorities, and that a wikiproject (but only one) has special powers of enforcement over such things. While I do not advocate rudeness, especially insults directed at living people simply because we allow discussion, this template is destructive of honest debate. If only one side of an issue is allowed to be raised, the editors advocating that side of the issue may very well believe they have consensus for their actions when they merely have a rule against opposing them directly. Such communications issues will lead to more problems like the current one with the Bradley-and/or-Chelsea Manning article and its talk page, leading to lengthy disruption of BLP articles with an impact on the subject that can be far beyond that of an editor using pronouns that have not received official clearance beforehand. In the interest of allowing reasonable debate about things that are reasonably debated, and in the interest of minimizing disruption on article talk pages including BLP talk pages, these templates should be deleted. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I recognize the disputes around transgendered persons can run hot at times, but I think these templates are reasonable requests for respecting the wishes of such persons. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: however much my interpretation of Wikipedia policy and basic human decency agrees with this, sadly, it's clear that this does not conform to the community's view. Sceptre(talk) 17:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Transphobia is all too common and accepted as normal on Wikipedia. This nomination comes on the heels of returning the Chelsea Manning article to her former name, against her wishes and common sense. Rather than help ensure this does't happen again we have an effort the actually educate interested readers about transgender issues. And provide links to relevant discussions and guidelines. The arguments are really about an issue with some of the wording - or at least I hope that's all they mean. The template is a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The template was edit-warred off the Manning article during discussion, if it had been left in place there's a reasonable chance the discussion results would have adhered the respecting the gender identity of a living person. Additionally the argument that the template asserts one must think a certain way is of course mistaken. As is the assumption that one must only express one way of thinking or be reported "to the authorities," instead it states "If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the WT:LGBT, or, in the case of living trans men, to WP:BLPN," which are both sensible places to get support. The talkpage had to be cut off from new/unregistered editors because the personal attacks and transphobic remarks were untenable. Clearly the template is needed, that fact is somewhat lamentable but as long as we have some guidance for editors there is no reason to delete it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A very good idea actually, not sure why I didn't think of nominating this earlier. What this template does is advocate for a single side of a societal debate, and it also casts aspersions on those who may hold an alternate point-of-view. A guideline cannot be imposed upon an article talk page as if it were policy (hence WP:CSD#T2, as editors have a wider degree of latitude when it comes to guideline compliance as opposed to policy compliance which is near-100% compulsory. It is also redundant; we already have specific policies in place to deal with personal attacks and to deal with WP:BLP transgressions, there no extra guidance needed just because the article falls under the transgender subject area. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What this template does is advocate for a single side of a societal debate, and it also casts aspersions on those who may hold an alternate point-of-view." That alone is not a good reason to reject a policy, especially when the opposing side often has less than rational motivations for their wording. I'm not calling anyone specifically out, but I feel that these templates provide an important guard against outright prejudiced edits like switching an article on a trans woman to male pronouns. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not rejecting a policy though, I am rejecting a guideline; time and time again MOS:IDENTITY has been mis-cited as policy during these discussions. If these templates are furthering and strengthening that misconception, then IMO you're giving even more weight to the WP:CSD#T2 nomination rationale. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say these templates have nothing to do with the classification of Mos:ID but rather that stems from editors being misled/not placing emphasis on the rather fuzzy delineation between guidelines and policies on WP. So I don't follow that speedy deletion argument. I think these templates are absolutely necessary, regardless of which policy takes precedence. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually remarks referring to Chelsea by her former name and gender, like yours, are exactly why the template is needed. The talkpage had to be cut off from new/unregistered editors because the personal attacks and transphobic remarks were untenable. Clearly the template is needed, that fact is somewhat lamentable but as long as we have some guidance for editors there is no reason to delete it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These templates accurately summarize MOS:IDENTITY, so CSD-T2 does not apply. Nothing in them suggests using foreign-language terms, so the invocation of WP:USEENGLISH is bizarre. It is helpful to summarize MOS:IDENTITY on the talk pages of the articles it affects, to cut down on the number of times editors change MOS-compliant articles to be non-compliant (and to cut back on the amount of time other editors must then spend bringing the articles back up to MOS standards) by editing and edit-warring over the pronouns. If one objects to the guideline that transgender individuals be referred to be the pronouns that accord with their expressed gender, it makes IMO little sense to oppose the existence of templates advertising this guideline; it would make more sense to address the guideline itself. This request for deletion could be perceived as an effort to make an end-run around that guideline, given that when it was discussed (in this still-ongoing discussion on WT:MOS), it was found to have the support of a majority of users. If you can convive a majority of the community to support changing MOS:IDENTITY, then you can come back here with a convincing CSD-T2 argument. -sche (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that these templates actively prohibit the use of natural English-language pronouns in discussion. To that extent it is opposed to the guidelines on using English. If you say "But you should use the other pronouns", well, the point is that people debate whether that is true, and templates like this hurt the debate. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No; the templates don't prohibit anything: the Manual of Style "prohibits"/"advises against" (depending on who you talk to) certain things (e.g. the use of m-dashes in terms like "Franco-Prussian war", the use of "she" as a reference to a trans man in an article about him, etc), and the templates advise editors about some of those guidelines. If you want to change the MOS, change the MOS; the templates are merely accurate summaries of the MOS. -sche (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that this template is needed is sad. But it is needed. It is not disruptive in any way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reword if needed. Before Manning case, the template had nothing wrong it its usage. The intention of the template is to explain users why a trans wo/man is called "s/he" when s/he born a wo/man, and viceversa (in other words to avoid thesekindofeditsbaseduponthesubject of the page or the topic itself) See some !votes at Manning RM, rather than be neutral comments in the topic ("Until the name is legally changed by the courts, the legal name is the one on the birth certificate", "Bradley Manning is what he is known by to most people", "Bradley is still his name and he is still a he until he changes both his name and undergoes the necessary treatments to become a woman", etc.) they are written as if they were posted in Conservapedia (e.g.): "He is a woman only in his own head, and the collective imagination of the radical left", "Biologically he is a man and will die a man", "Has everybody opposed to this moved forgotten that he is a criminal???", "Bradley was clearly in a state of psychosis when he decided he was Chelsea, so MOS:IDENTITY is irrelevant. He didn't know what he was saying", etc. The problem is not the template itself, the problems are biased opinions (whichever, liberal or conservative) taken to extreme points, and people believing their POV is to be known and followed by every other person. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 19:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly true that some comments in the Manning discussion were quite needlessly rude toward Manning. I don't support such rudeness and I have not made this nomination to encourage rudeness. The templates seriously overreach, beyond merely prohibiting rudeness, to an active prohibition on the natural expression of certain opinions about article content. That is why I made this nomination. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nobody cared about these until a few days ago; they were acceptable additions to talk pages of BLPs concerning transgendered people, such as Talk:Roberta Cowell or Talk:Fallon Fox, and helped to calm down edit-warring. Now there is the case of Talk:Bradley Manning and all hell breaks loose. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – recent events have shown that many editors are ignorant when it comes to transgendered individuals and some are prejudiced to the point of seeing no problem with vilification. Templates like this can help to address the ignorance, and hopefully shame the prejudiced into keeping their bias to themselves. The relevant policy is BLP, though some still deny its applicability. EdChem (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think most people here are missing the point – the only part of the template(s) that concerns the talk page is this: "Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans women are or are not women." Which is damn well true, and warranted given a certain article's talk page that's received a slew of incredibly opinionated messages over the past week or so. The rest of it is just an interpretation of MOS:IDENTITY which I don't think is very problematic. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is completely incorrect. In regards to MOS standards and long standing consensus regarding LGBT individuals, this template properly explains how we use gender pronouns for transgendered individuals on Wikipedia. It is completely accurate with policy and consensus. SilverserenC 19:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some editors may view the following sentence as discouraging discussion or proscribing how editors should talk about the subject: "Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans men are or are not men." CaseyPenk (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an entirely reasonable request. We would not brook the use of a talk page for a biographical article about a Jewish person as a forum for discussing someone's opinion that Jews are responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Similarly, the talk page for a biographical article about a transgender person should never be used as a forum for discussing someone's opinion that transgender people aren't real. It's an inappropriate use of the talk page. This does not proscribe discussion about what pronoun to use or what to title the article.
Saying "Chelsea Manning isn't a woman and will never be a woman" is neither constructive nor acceptable in modern society. That would literally be a violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy as an unwarranted personal attack on a biographical subject. A person's self-identified gender identity is not a subject for debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why do we need two different templates? Shouldn't a single one be enough? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One is for trans men the other is for trans women. It would seem that these two can cover a wide swath of articles that fall into these cases. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There still doesn't need to be two, one for trans-people is enough (if you even need to be so specialized as to be for trans-people). -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think combining the templates into a single MOS-TRANS template (especially one that accepted TM and TW as parameters and tweaked its display text to use "him" or "her" accordingly) would be an ideal way of preventing the templates from falling out of sync. (Their wordings and formats are slightly out of sync at this very moment. One speaks of "identity", the other "gender identity", one is divided into paragraphs, the other isn't...) -sche (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that they could and should be consolidated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:CREEP if such templates are necessary, there doesn't need to be two of them, and since the guideline is MOS:IDENTITY, it shouldn't be so specific as to only refer to trans-men or trans-women only, necessitating umpteen individual templates for each identity issue. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Past experience differs from yours, they were created, presumably, to address ongoing BLP concerns and provide several links that aids editors understandably under-informed on transgender issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing BLP concerns does not require a special template for trans-men another for trans-women. One for MOS:IDENTITY is enough, it could even have parameters to specify which particular identity issue is under threat. Separate templates for each identity issues is most definitely WP:CREEP -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally no template or one template would work but in practice there are enough misinformed and transphobic editors that a slightly expanded template is needed. We have had ample evidence of that on Chelsea Manning's article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any obvious problems. It accurately summarizes a guideline and uses English. Seems like a bad-faith attempt at anti-gay activism to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the following: "Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans women are or are not women." as this is noplace to be found in MOS:IDENTITY and violates WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And I have reverted you, because it does not violate NPOV to note that a biographical article's talk page is not the proper location to debate the question of whether gender identity is a real thing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong feelings about the inclusion of that sentence. I'd keep it until someone presents an actual argument for its removal. I don't find Knowledgekid87's argument to be an actual argument: the sentence is indeed not derived from MOS:IDENTITY, but it is derived from the page which it links to, namely WP:NOTAFORUM. That policy says "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article". And for the same reason that the template ((Notaforum)), with its generalized caution, is applied to pages like [[Talk:The Holocaust]] — namely to discourage the sort of unhelpful-and-irrelevant-to-improving-the-encyclopedia diatribes which that page attracts — it is helpful to discourage the unhelpful-and-irrelevant-to-improving-the-encyclopedia diatribes that pages on transgender people attract. And because articles on transgender people do attract mostly one particular theme of diatribe, about "whether or not trans [men/women] are real [men/women]", I can see how it is more helpful to have a sentence in MOS-TW advising against that particular diatribe, rather than to remove the sentence and add ((Notaforum)) to all pages that use MOS-TW (though that would be an option). -sche (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While some of the disruption in trans-related articles stems from users trying to push their personal opinions on the encyclopedia in violation of the MOS, some of it (WP:AGF) certainly stems from people simply not knowing better. This sort of notice on a talkpage would be helpful to them and save other users the trouble of constantly linking to MOS:IDENTITY. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove the sentence "Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans women are or are not women." The remainder of the box is merely a restatement of the existing guideline on article content. Even though I disagree with this guideline in its current form, it is important for everyone involved in related discussions to be aware of its existence, so they don't waste time arguing in the wrong place. However, it is inappropriate to try to police talk page content in the same way. Editors should be free to express their opinions on factual questions. In fact, the editors who disobey that sentence the most and the loudest, are those who are the most sympathetic to the trans worldview. – Smyth\talk 14:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do you really think it's okay to use Wikipedia's talk page as a forum?? You're literally saying that it is. Georgia guy (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that editors are free to express their opinions on factual questions as they relate to the article content. Preferably with sources, of course, in which case they are not purely "your own opinions" anymore. Still, I think it would be more useful to remind users of what they should be doing on the talk page, rather than ordering them not to do something. – Smyth\talk 21:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to see that the following is not acceptable:
I hate the rule that trans women are women. Their chromosomes say they are men, even after the operation. (I'm not saying this is true; I'm merely referring to this statement as an example of something that's not acceptable.)
Can you give an example of a statement that if a user writes, they would be following Wikipedia talk page policies despite not matching what the template says?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically you're correct. However, it appears that some are interpreting the template's current wording as a statement that the MOS:IDENTITY guideline covers talk page discussions, which it clearly does not. (Example.) I assume that is what the original nominator meant by "misrepresentations of policy". – Smyth\talk 22:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I see them, each of the two templates falls into two parts. The first relates to the article and MOS:IDENTITY; the second to the talk page and WP:NOTAFORUM. Perhaps there should be a paragraph break before the word "Finally". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What, no, that's even worse. "Material violating this guideline" clearly refers to the article, not the talk page. The guideline does not apply to the talk page, but by grouping paragraphs that way you're making an even stronger implication that it does. If the sentence about the talk page must remain, put it in its own paragraph at the end. – Smyth\talk 08:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LGBT issues globally tend to draw controversy. A BLP talk page template specifically designed to address the higher likelihood of controversy than a typical BLP seems like a legitimate need. I also disagree with User:Smyth. I think that the sentence should stay simply to remind editors that talk pages are not forums.--v/r - TP 17:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sympathetic to the intention of these templates and believe they are useful to a degree, but somewhat concerned that they make the person's status as transgender into a bigger and more visible issue than necessary. Many people regard being transgender as a private matter or confidential medical information. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally the templates wouldn't be needed at all, we know that they are are are used to stop a lot of nonsense from even starting. The same way that talkpages have a basic guideline at the top for best practices. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't really see a problem with this template. Also, "that you must express only that opinion on talk pages" Well, yeah. There are trans editors on here, so it seems only civil to not intentionally insult them and everyone like them in the talk section. Cam94509 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to share free knowledge? WP wants to attract new editors and retain them, and by keeping the template it aides those who may want to add to the article but have no knowledge about preferred gender pronouns. InfinityBird (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the following: "Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans women are or are not women." As I pointed out MOS:IDENTITY does not go into people who want to express their opinions if it comes to improving the article. The sentence is too broad. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to Delete Seeing that MOS:IDENTITY is contested right now and that these templates go and interpret things that are not written in the policy I endorse the deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not find either of the proposed deletion rationales convincing. VQuakr (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix as creator of the templates. Please note that I was not notified of this discussion. These templates are properly limited to summarizing and conveying community consensus, and I believe there's a fair value in summarizing MOS:IDENTITY within them. This has particular policy value, as many new editors find MOS:IDENTITY to be surprising. However, the content of the templates should be carefully limited to summarize, rather than extend, policy, and it does feel to me as if the templates have been extended significantly past their original remit. (Roughly as per Knowledgekid87) Issues that go beyond the proper use of a talk page can be handled, and if necessary, templated against, separately. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You, template people, don't think you are so influent. After reading a few number of articles, any reader acquires the reflex to skip all these annoying yellow boxes, and go to the content... if any. A great example: Crown Prince Hyomyeong, where we have 4cm of text, and 15cm of templates: indeed, an encyclopedia that anyone can template. Pldx1 (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep neither of the deletion rationales apply, and believe the template to be useful in summarizing MOS:IDENTITY and fending off repetitive discussion. —me_and 21:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these templates provide useful summaries of accepted policy, and arguably are necessary to make readers more familiar with that policy and discourage them from violating it. That said, I would remove the sentence 'Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans women are or are not women', which seems to me to raise WP:BEANS issues, i.e. inviting the very behaviour it's supposed to discourage. Such off-topic comments are already covered by the policy WP:NOTFORUM, and don't need to be specifically addressed in these templates. Robofish (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that some talk pages have not-a-forum templates, including Talk:Pluto. Georgia guy (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Getting rid of that sentence seems sensible. —me_and 11:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a lot if this is common sense and shouldn't be needed at all. But it is. Some of the most violent comments against Chelsea Manning and transwomen in general stem from that basic premise - people spouting off how someone could never change gender/gender identity/who they were assigned at birth, etc. People brought up bestiality comparisons, called Manning an "it", and suggested she was a different species. This is exactly why a blunt obvious disclaimer is helpful. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The way I see it, this template doesn't exist to tell veteran users that they can't debate the merits of various trans-related content issues. Rather, it exists as an attempt to limit the endless string of "he's a man/she's a girl, you faggot-lovers" comments that pop up at places like Talk:Brandon Teena or Talk:Fallon Fox. And the second part of the template is just a more specific iteration of ((Not a forum)), tailored for a subject matter that frequently attracts comments unrelated to building an encyclopedia. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in their entirety. These templates are sadly necessary, and the timing of this nomination (which was proposed as speedy) looks to me like a violation of WP:POINT. AlexTiefling (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per: Sceptre with the additonal comment that implying that this issue has been resolved (which these templates do) is by far the lamest thing I have seen on wikipedia in a while. If it says "many editors intirprit MOS:IDENTITY to say... but the matter is still under debate" I would be happy to keep it but the issue is clearly not resolved and this template is lying. Addionally the instructions to inform the LBGT working group is blatantly biased. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a pretty naked attempt at tilting the debate on the Chelsea Manning page. Artw (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PinkAmpersand, who summarises the reason for its existence nicely - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It bothers me quite a bit that what is written in this template does not follow what is written in MOS:IDENTITY. Templates should represent what is actually put into policies and guidelines and not interpreted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY has been altered several times in the last few weeks, which is why it's no longer directly comparable. Some of the changes went against consensus; part of the problem is that there are parallel discussions in (to my certain knowledge) at least four different places, and they are pulling in different directions. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to these template's recreation at a later date when MOS:IDENTITY is not contested anymore but as of right now these templates are causing more harm than good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. These templates are stopping people who have less than optimal information about trans people from making hurting, inflammatory comments and endlessly arguing that we should disrespect BLP and the wishes of the people who are making a very tough personal decision to be honest about who they are, It would be much easier of gays and lesbians would just be strait and trans people simply suffered with whatever gender identity they were assigned at birth. Then everyone else could simply assume that only straight normal men and women existed and there didn't actually exist dozens of genders, and sexuality wasn't fluid. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These templates cannot stop anyone from doing anything, I'm afraid, as they only prop up a narrowly-focused style guideline, not policy. If there are editors who are being purposefully crass or disruptive when discussing transgender topics, then they can be sanctioned under existing policy such as those that cover personal attacks and disruption. If there are editors who are taking part in these debates that, in the course of expressing their opinion, refer to Manning as "he", there's nothing you can or will do about that. That sort of thing may run counter to the spirit of that style guideline, but it isn't actionable or sanctionable. If you feel otherwise, you are always free to file a complaint about such an editor, but your mileage will be IMO rather disappointing. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the sentence reading "Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans men are or are not men." is generalized or (ideally) removed (see discussion here). That statement is redundant with Template:Not a forum and prohibits only a certain type of commentary without prohibiting others. I would prefer the sentence be changed or removed before this deletion discussion concludes; my vote is contingent upon change or removal. That is, if the phrase is generalized or removed I will support keep. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion begun on Template talk:MOS-TW about whether to keep or remove that sentence is being postponed until this Request for Deletion concludes... -sche (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've already started some discussion on that topic. But if we don't reach a conclusion on removal/rephrasing of that sentence, I will default to a delete vote on the template as a whole. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it could or would be used to bully the community into accepting the view that the subject is, in fact, a trans man or trans woman when that question is at issue: e.g. "the template says he or she is a trans man or trans woman therefore the debate is over." There may be no dispute that the subject self-identifies as trans, but if there is absolutely no objective evidence of that or any source usage consistent with that it remains debatable whether the subject is, in fact, trans as opposed to retaining the gender of birth and making unsupported claims to having "transitioned." It is not transphobic to request more objective evidence that the claimed transitioning is completed or at least well underway. That debate should be allowed.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For a few days, I thought that this template was going to survive Tfd. Since yesterday evening (I live in the Eastern Time Zone of the United States, for clarification on when this was for me) I've picked up a lot of evidence that this template won't. Georgia guy (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does this direct questions to fhe LGBT project instead of the admin boards, or even the MOS boards? If there is a syle issue, or a violation of some sorts, aren't those the preferred venues?Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you refer to the sentence beginning "If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted". That links to WP:BLPN for a very good reason: in the case of living people WP:BLP trumps WP:MOS any time. For people who are verifiably dead, BLP continues to apply for at least six months: after that period WT:LGBT is the noticeboard of a project with perhaps more knowledge that any other in transgender issues. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2013 (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.
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 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 discussion was no consensusPlastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove links to country articles - similar to not putting film navboxes on actors' articles, we should not clutter country articles with international organisation navboxes. Instead, each country article should ensure it contains a clear link to each organisation's article. Having said that, it would be nice to see a link to the discussion(s) referred to by the nominator. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. There is a long list of related discussions in yesterday's log.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you remove the template from country articles or not, does not mean that the country links should disappear from the template itself. If you're navigating topics of the OECD, then the member countries are topics of the OECD, which you might want to read. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete. 4 very short articles, 1 is an obvious WIP. List them under See also. — Lfdder (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for recognizing the members and navigating between their articles. Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this template is not just a set of links to nations, it contains other articles as well -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dimadick, and leave the links in. Potentially useful links are not clutter. Bazonka (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2013 (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.
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 discussion was no consensusPlastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per this, that, etc. — Lfdder (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for recognizing the members and navigating between their articles. Dimadick (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this template is not just a set of links to nations, it contains other articles as well -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dimadick, and leave the links in. Potentially useful links are not clutter. Bazonka (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2013 (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.
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 discussion was no consensusPlastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for recognizing the members and navigating between their articles. Dimadick (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep editors should have the choice between sidebar and footer templates. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dimadick, and leave the links in. Potentially useful links are not clutter. Bazonka (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2013 (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.
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.
Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep but remove country links. — Lfdder (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for recognizing the members and navigating between their articles. Though I disagree about removing country links. If it has no countries, this should be deleted. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this template is not just a set of links to nations, it contains other articles as well -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dimadick, and leave the links in. Potentially useful links are not clutter. Bazonka (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2013 (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.
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.
Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep but remove country links. — Lfdder (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for recognizing the members and navigating between their articles. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dimadick, and leave the links in. Potentially useful links are not clutter. Bazonka (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2013 (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.
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 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.
Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either this or ((Unasur vcard)). If deleting ((Unasur vcard)), remove country links from this one. — Lfdder (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sidebar and footer presentation should be up to the editor, who should have the option, so both should exist -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the editor? This isn't a one-man project. — Lfdder (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for recognizing the members and navigating between their articles. Dimadick (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this isn't just a set of links to countries, it contains other articles as well -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2013 (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.
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 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 proposal is not about deleting the navbox, but about restricting it to links about the organisation (e.g. Southern African Customs Union, Common Monetary Area) and removing it from all country-level articles (Angola, Botswana etc), where they serve little purpose other than to clutter the lower portion of the page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is Useful for recognizing the members and navigating between their articles. Dimadick (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dimadick, and leave the links in. Potentially useful links are not clutter. Bazonka (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2013 (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.
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 discussion was no consensusPlastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so looking at the arguments of the last TFD. The nominator presented a point I agree with:
This template has no practical applications. If an article is believed to be based mostly or entirely on a hoax, it's usually nominated for deletion.
To which I added:
I check this template regularly in transclusions, and either it's a drive-by tagging with no obvious hoaxery in sight (for instance, I saw no misinformation in Lock Up (American band)), or something so patently wrong that it should've just gone to AFD in the first place.
Counterarguments were that it is useful in citing possible hoaxes. But as I said, they come up so rarely anymore, due to the low number of transclusions I see of this template on any given day. I follow this template often to see when it gets transcluded, and it's almost never on more than one or two articles at a time.
My arguments that "I would think that letting a hoax sit around, even with a tag, would do more damage. Because in that case, the misinformation is still around to be seen, instead of being shot down more quickly by AFD or removal." was countered with "And what about if a long-term contributor is being investigated for possible fabulism?" After I argued that " If it is a hoax, it'll be gone in a week and the visibility of the template will be minimal at best. And when was the last time we had a serial hoaxer?", to which the best response was "but but but, there could be a serial hoaxer about!" with no evidence to prove it.
There is also the problem that this template never seems to instigate any discussion. As I said with Lock Up (American band), there was no discussion in sight, nor anything that in any way resembled a hoax. The only current transclusion is on DXAJ, which is currently prod-tagged with "Hoax station" — and that's all it needs. It doesn't need a second template repeating the same.
In short: Tagging a possible hoax seems counterintuitive. If something is a hoax, then it's far easier to take it to deletion. Just slapping on a tag saying "this might be a hoax" is nothing but counterproductive template creep. If something is very obvious, then it can be speedied in a heartbeat. If only part of an article is hoax, then cut that part out. If there are suspicions that it might be a hoax, just send it to PROD or AFD, so it can be deleted, instead of sitting around and creating potential problems. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not everyone is well versed in creating deletion nominations. It is better to tag an article as a hoax and get a more knowledgeable user to nominate it, than to leave one as it. Beside that, having hoax material does not mean that everything on the article is bad, it may be salvageable, so "deletion is not a substitution for cleanup". Reduction of major portions of articles gets the bots/editpatroller loving, meaning that some users will be automatically reverted by them because of massive chunks of articles going missing and get vandalism warnings. IF people choose to not go through the drama of getting rid of vandalism warnings, they may choose to not fix problems at all. Having this tag allows other users to know there's a problem with the article, and access various processes to fix it. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"having hoax material does not mean that everything on the article is bad, it may be salvageable, so 'deletion is not a substitution for cleanup'." Then why not just remove the material you think is a hoax without tagging it? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I explained it. Reduction of major portions of articles gets the bots/editpatroller loving attentions, meaning that some users will be automatically reverted by them because of massive chunks of articles going missing and get vandalism warnings. This is even more of a headache when they introduce WP:FLOW, since you can no longer ask the person who posted the warnings to remove a mistaken one, and have to pester administrators to do it. Ofcourse, many people who post warnings by mistake don't remove them and say "do it yourself" anyways, which also gets the attention of editpatrollers, who revert it, so you end up at WP:AN asking for an admin to remove mistaken warnings from your talk page. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as previously. I'd also like to add my recommendation to the nominating editor that it is about time to stop nominating maintenance templates for deletion. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as last time. Gadgets and tools make it easy for editors to AfD an article suspected of being a hoax, and they're more likely to do that than to find this obscure template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this template is only stated that once a suspected article is a hoax, it may be displayed it here. But once it is confirmed, it will let the template removed until further notice. So I never seen it as a big issue to delete it. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is for when is probably is a hoax but you are not sure enough for speedy deletion. Even when at AFD this is a service for our readers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it goes to AFD, then what's the point of having a second tag on, when you can just go to the AFD and see that the AFDer has likely said something to the effect of "likely hoax"? Most hoaxes are caught on sight, so tagging them is redundant. Jaded (Band), to name just one example, could've just gone straight to AFD without the redundant template-bombing. If it's likely to be deleted, why template-bomb it in the first place? Also, did you not see my statements and proof that the template is prone to drive-by tagging? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:48, 7 September 2013 (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.
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 discussion was no consensusPlastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks like one of those templates which should always be substituted, so there should be no transclusions, therefore will be apparently "unused". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A better measure is to search for key phrases in the notice, like this. the key is to use a phrase not frequently duplicated by other notices. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As said above, it's substituted, not transcluded, so yes, it's not going to appear anywhere. More importantly, it's a dependency of Special:NewPagesFeed. Deleting this template is likely to break a chunk of the new page patrollers' workflows. Ironholds (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: I'd argue against doing so if only because db-copyvio-notice is....a really, really great way of having a user not correct for their mistakes. The NPF templates are the result of a hell of a lot of work by quite a few people trying to understand how effective our warnings are. Their conclusion was "not very". One of the key strengths of Page Curation, in my opinion, is the humanity of the messages that it provides, which goes a long way towards making newcomers feel like they're welcome, not just like they screwed up. The increase in the number of users who have started talking to me after having their articles screwed up, since I switched to Page Curation, has been dramatic. Ironholds (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as with below template, we don't need this and redirecting should work nicely. Cathfolant (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Cathfolant: why don't we need it? See the above rationale; I find it far more effective than the template that's being suggested. Ironholds (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I actually thought the same thing, but then I decided it wasn't necessary because it does in fact say essentially the same thing, as I said. That's interesting that you find it more effective; perhaps it should stay, and the other one should be redirected? You are absolutely right that it is friendlier. Cathfolant (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or, frankly, we could just keep both. From the database's point of view, the only difference between a deleted page and a saved page is that a pile of revisions live in the archive table rather than the revisions table; there's no space change, and thus no cost to saving it. I would, of course, also support keeping this and merging the other ;). Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this, or delete all NPF variants (not that I am saying I would support such a move, but just that for consistency, all such templates should be considered as a group). This is no worse or better than the other NPF templates. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ironholds. -sche (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we are not restricted to use of one text and this is a friendly one suitable for new articl patrol work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2013 (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:Db-banned-notice-NPF
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 discussion was no consensusPlastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Db-banned-notice doesn't exist, so I don't see why this needs to exist, either. It obviously isn't necessary to notify blocked users that their pages are being deleted, as ((Uw-sockblock)) provides a link to WP:SOCK, which explains that any pages created in violation of a block or ban will be deleted. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily striking !vote to reconsider per discussion below. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
So, let's be clear who the target audience here are; banned users, and users we mistakenly believe to be returned, banned users. The first group...well, frankly, if you're banned it's usually for good cause: whether we're polite or rude about it, their return indicates that listening to us isn't something they do. The second group, we should try to be reasonable for: those are people who can, in fact, continue to be useful members of the community. Being rude or abrupt is unnecessary here, because the recipient is either going to be offended and someone we want around or not listening to start with. So I reject the argument that it's too "nice".
More importantly, this is an essential part of Wikipedia:Page Curation; deleting it without having it formally removed from the software creates instability and broken functionality on Wikipedia. If you want that done, that's fine - but you'll need to show far greater consensus than "two users at an AfD", and you'll need to make a formal request (and wait for it to be processed and implemented). Until then, people here are essentially arguing that we should break a piece of MediaWiki because they think it's too polite. Ironholds (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, G5 has generally been used judiciously with few false positives. A notification for good G5 deletions is wholly unnecessary and flies in the face of WP:DENY. If the rate of false G5 deletions was much higher then the notification would be beneficial, but the DENY-based argument in my view wins out. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY notes it's for "exceptional" attention - and is also an essay. By the same standard, should we stop tagging sockpuppets? I'd argue that in that case a message implicitly saying "whatever you do, we'll obliterate it" is pretty good at vexing them. Ironholds (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my understanding, pages created by banned users are usually deleted using some sort of mass tagging, which doesn't use Page Curation. So, if my understanding is correct, this template probably wouldn't be used very much anyway. In response to the above post, it is possible sockpuppets that are being blocked with ((uw-sockblock)), which provides a link to WP:SOCK. WP:SOCK says that any contributions made in violation of a block or ban will be reverted or deleted, so blocked users are already getting that message. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 18:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page Curation tagging is logged, actually, so you can test the rates - and, are you really arguing that "it has a link - one of its many links - to a long policy which in one specific place mentions contributions will be removed" as a form of notification? We know full well that standard block, warning and deletion templates tend not to get the message through precisely because they obfuscate necessary information (or provide far too much of it). Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds makes a valid point. Instead of deleting the template, we should consider changing the wording of the message and linking it to relevant policy. As it stands right now, "The article you started has been tagged because it was created in violation of a ban," seems too shallow a notice for a user who has violated a block or ban. ((uw-sockblock)) does explain what sock puppetry is; however, it does not indicate clearly that any edits made by this user should be reverted or deleted. ((BannedMeansBanned)) gives this messsage; however, the BannedMeansBanned template addresses the community. A template like this should be used occasionally to let the banned user themselves know that banned does indeed mean banned. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Michaelzeng7: That seems reasonable to me; I've WP:BOLDly added a link to the policy in the template - I've also explicitly noted, in the message, that "Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately", which I think is likely to be more effective a disincentive than a mention in the policy itself (which, as said, is down a link). Ironholds (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I've also added a link to Template:Uw-sockblock, as I think that is is definitely worth mentioning. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 14:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ((SockBlock)), maybe. It still strikes me as not being serious enough for such situations. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 15:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except, again, redirecting is not necessarily going to work because PageTriage expects to pass certain parameters along, and...well, let's see where we are, here. The normal templates: we know they don't work, it's as simple as that. They singularly fail to draw a user's attention and a lot of the time the message doesn't even get read; there was some research done into this. As a response to that research, the WMF had a team create some new templates that lacked the failures of the existing ones, and A/B test them - the newly-created templates consistently came out better. The same team then wrote these ones.
Now: I disagree with people on various things, be it inclusionism versus deletionism, the BLP policy or...a dozen other things under the sun. But when people can speak with some authority or expertise I tend to listen to them. Right now we've got you saying the template isn't harsh enough, me saying it's harsh enough, and I'd argue both of our opinions are irrelevant: the fact of the matter is that it's quite probably more effective a template, according to people who know what they're talking about in this domain, than what you're proposing replacing it with. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if only occasionally useful we may as well have this as part of the interface. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2013 (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:Arbëreshë Settlements and Notable Individuals
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 discussion was rename, removing the notable people. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
should be split into separate templates, too broad of a scope if you check the "notable people" section of Arbëreshë people. Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would just remove the 'notable people' part, it's not the kind of grouping that can be made into a navbox as the potential scope is enormous.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the 'notable people' part. These kind of articles are better left for categories. Templates could be expanded indefinitely as more and more bio articles are included. Dimadick (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2013 (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.
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.
No longer navigates the stations which have been converted to redirects to the main Jacksonville Skyway article. Sw2nd (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No longer necessary since most of the the stations have been merged into the main article. If that changes the template can be recreated.--Cúchullaint/c 17:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it was stupid to merge all the stations into the main article. You might as well do this with every single mass transit system in the country. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2013 (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.