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).
This new UW template is intended to be specific to infoboxes, which would not of itself be a problem except that it sacrifices specificity as to the actual conduct at issue. Is it a test edit? Deliberate introduction of an error? An unsourced addition? We have specific multilevel templates for all of these issues already, and identifying the edit as being in an infobox just isn't useful to identifying or explaining those problems. Bsherr (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the template specifically for cases when a user changes a fact or figure in an infobox, but not the corresponding fact or figure in the rest of the article; I am familiar with the other user warning templates but in these cases find it hard to discern whether or not it is indeed a test edit, vandalism or deliberate introduction of an error, and "unsourced addition" may confuse users when they merely changed facts that weren't sourced in the first place. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are trying to accomplish, and it's great that your instinct is to assume good faith if it's unclear that the edit is vandalism or a test. But because a user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it, we don't have user warnings for accidental misinformation. Rather, per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Misinformation, accidental, If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, remove it once you are certain it is inaccurate, or discuss its factuality with the user who has added it. On the other hand, because we have a Wikipedia:Verifiability policy (as opposed to a Wikipedia:Accuracy policy), it would be perfectly acceptable to warn a user about an unsourced change even if the original information is unsourced. --Bsherr (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 14:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of "warning" beingposibly inappropriate could be dealt with by moving it from single issue warnings, to single-issue notices. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some more information to the notice which encouraged the editor to cite a source and change it in main body of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Allowing editors to know what they affected wrongly should be kept. With all previous edits in mind, I'd say keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KylieInTheSkylie (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems helpful and by relating directly to what the user did is more likely to be understood than a generic message that either doesn't quite fit or might be wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this could be used, but it would be a lot more informative if the user received a more specific template. CrazyBoy826 22:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:The Vinyls
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).
Currently, the principal links here are point to draft articles. Not needed yet. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I doubt it will ever be needed: not only are the articles (including the one for the band) still at draft stage, most of them are pure bull... all the chart positions on the band page are fictitious, it doesn't look like they've ever been signed to a major label, and there doesn't appear to be a single review, interview, article, anything about them or their music. It's not a hoax band because the first album at least is available from their Bandcamp site, but pretty much everything else is wishful thinking. Richard3120 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the releases on the template may be correct but the drafts on the template appear to be over rated so the band can pass our guidelines, they certainly have not charted on any singles chart or the album chart let alone reached number one. They are not on a music label which they need at least an independent label at least to chart.DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Northern Virginia Politicians
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 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:American Hockey Association seasons
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).
Delete, provides no navigational value. Flibirigit (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:IowaHistologyInteractive
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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the content is now locked behind a login. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2020 (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 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).
Merge per nom. On first inspection, both templates seem very big. However most of the links are links to subsections of the same article, so it won't be too much to merge them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. PPEMES (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2020 (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).
Merge per nom. On first inspection, both templates seem very big. However most of the links are links to subsections of the same article, so it won't be too much to merge them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. PPEMES (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2020 (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).
Cricket standing templates
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom since it's been merged. Neverbuffed (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2020 (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).