The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Given the similarities between templates, there is NPASR if the entire category is nominated. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep if we are only considering this navbox, otherwise I would support deleting all the "second place" navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2023 (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(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
This duplicates the function either of ((rfc)), if you go by the documentation (This template can be used on talk pages to introduce discussions about a page or topic for which the objective is to reach consensus.), or of ((FAQ)), if you check the actual uses where it describes what the consensus is. Should be converted to one of those and then deleted. Izno (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this, but perhaps I am just confused. Can you clarify how this would work for the talk page Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack? On that page, Consensus is used to discuss multiple actions with the majority of the list being the current consensus on a number of topics and the rest being a few lines regarding arbitration enforcement. I don't see RfC being a useable substitute and I have some doubts about FAQ being a reasonable substitute for the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That case is the use case for ((FAQ)). It doesn't need a little person on the left and a template named "consensus" to be used to indicate the current consensus. Izno (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get that the icon doesn't really work for the arbitration enforcement lines, but I don't understand how FAQ would work. The FAQ template to me is more when the same question has been asked multiple times on a talk page and has a question and answer format based on the questions asked and the responses given. For the use of the Consensus template at the Jan 6 talk page, it is eight statements about seven active actions and one inactive action from various past discussions. I don't think it is as simple as switching the template from Consensus to FAQ, even if it is possible. (If that is what you are suggesting to do, it doesn't look right on Chrome. All of the text gets bolded and centered as all of the lines are treated as unlabeled questions.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree that the template is replaceable with the FAQ template. With the Jan 6th talk page for example, I don't think the formatting would be as effective. SWinxy (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed I highly disagree that any random template should be replaced with RFC in any cases. The RFC Template should only be used with RFCs, it clearly announces its purpose as an RFC template. Marking any random discussion as an RFC is wrong. I don't see how this overlaps with FAQ either. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Swinxy. The two templates appear to have genuinely different scope, and the use of red for deletion formatting as opposed to the yellow for the RfC seems apt. If it ain't broke.... — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 14:22, 11 August 2023 (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:Spoiler Reminder
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Basically unused and for that matter doesn't need a standing reminder, especially not for the 3 older works with talk pages it's being used on. Specific editors removing spoilers can be warned with ((uw-spoiler)) instead. Izno (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't need a reminder. SWinxy (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an unneeded niche template. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only used on 11 pages, the “spoilers” debate died out eons ago. Dronebogus (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it could be restricted to future works and works less than 1-year-old ... akin to ((current)) except with a wider time window. Or we could just use ((uw-spoiler)) for blanking spoiler information -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2023 (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).
Admin indicators
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. If there's a desire to redirect the duplicates as mentioned below it can either be done boldly or you can start a discussion either on their talk pages or MfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By policy, adminship should not be a big deal, but this theory is often not reflected in practice.
There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that some editors grant more social capital to admins, affording their comments greater weight even when they are not acting as an admin. For example, during the recent RfA that prompted this proposal, Femke said the impact of coming across as curt will be larger due to the social capital of the mop, and other users, particularly Barkeep49, also reflected on this aspect.
One method to address this is to reduce the visibility of admins; to make it less likely that editors will realize that one or more of the editors they are discussing with is an admin. I am proposing these deletions to do exactly that, as these are some of the most prominent indicators that an editor is an admin.
Speedy keep: Not a valid reason to delete, administrators should be allowed to have the topicon and userbox to be more easily identified as an administrator. By your logic we should delete CAT:ADMINS, the other admin userboxes and ban administrators from identifying themselves as one on their userpage and user talk page. It is better for users to know whether a user is an admin or not. Lightoil (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic we should delete CAT:ADMINS, the other admin userboxes and ban administrators from identifying themselves as one on their userpage and user talk page. Partially, you are right; I've added the other admin userboxes to the nomination. However, I don't believe that the rest, that we should delete CAT:ADMINS and ban administrators from identifying themselves on their user page, follows from my logic. The goal isn't to make admins invisible; it's to take simple steps, that don't have any real adverse impact, to make admins less visible. Removing userboxes and topicons meet that requirement; removing categories (particularly useful categories, like Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles), or banning admins from self-identifying, do not. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what a Speedy keep is, but Keep per Lightoil. casualdejekyll 13:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep possible Highly used template, no valid reasons for deletion. Also identifying who's an admin or whatnot makes it easier to ask an admin for help if needed. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 13:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per ancient law, user boxes must be nominated at WP:MFD, not WP:TFD (seriously, I don't make the rules). See WP:TFD#How to use this page. That said, on the merits, this probably is not a very good nomination per the above among others, though I respect the boldness. Izno (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will cast a !vote to redirect the 2 variant templates. We don't need two ways to say I'm an admin in a user box. There's probably a second adjustment to remove the "since" variations as well by merging to an appropriate user box the functionality for since. Izno (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per Lightoil. A09 (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but redirect the dupes like Izno said: I couldn't agree more with the spirit of the nomination, but it really is helpful to know whether someone's an admin. Also it sorts them into Category:Wikipedia administrators, which they might not do manually. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 19:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this is beyond what I have the patience to figure out how to do correctly on a Sunday after 3 minutes of instruction staring but I believe this discussion should be moved over to MfD which is, as Izno notes, the correct place to have a discussion about infoboxes. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I would help try to move it over, but it would get pretty ugly since Template:Administrator topicon is also part of the nomination, and that is not a userbox. I would almost rather invoke WP:IAR and keep it here. Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be the first time we've assessed user boxes directly here because someone didn't know. If we keep it here, I would suggest a note at WT:MFD and/or a "formal" but without content filing on WP:MFD itself, pointing users here.
As for how I would list it if instead we go that way, I'd make an MFD just for the user boxes, copy the comments so far over there, and then remove the user boxes from this nom, potentially with an archive top/bot but inviting further discussion below, since most users who have responded here have mostly focused on the user boxes I think (given their quantity). Izno (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because MfD relies on subst anyway could that just be an option? Essentially cross post the whole thing? Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 not sure what your referent that is there. Izno (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; redirect duplicates per Izno and Heavy Water foobarbaz 21:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Izno and Heavy Water. Redirecting the dupes is also fine with me. --Lenticel(talk) 00:20, 7 August 2023 (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(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was Keep At the very least there is a clear lack of consensus to merge these. * Pppery *it has begun... 21:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Round in circles with Template:Archives.
This is just an archives search box with a blurb saying that people like to argue a lot, and most article talk pages have an article search box. They don't need two of them. And for truly contentious articles there is Template:Contentious topics which should be used. In the ongoing effort to clean up the talk pages with redundant and unnecessary banner templates, this one should be merged. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:CT is not for casual use. Round in circles can be used anywhere. There may be value to deleting RIC but that's not a good reason.
As for the search box, I think removing that makes sense, then it's reduced to a basic "don't do that". I think we might have an alternative to that lying around, but we should probably identify that before nomination (or definitely know that such exists). Izno (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
((controversial)) and ((calm)) might be feasible "one line mention" merge targets. Instead of a whole template, just a "try not to repeat yourself" directive in one of those might be sufficient. Izno (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those two talk banners seem more than adequate. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Other templates exist already that don't pointlessly recreate an archives search. This is the kind of banner that takes up space and as a result causes people to read nothing on the talk page. Aza24 (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge since no valid rationale for merging has been given. Summertalk 13:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator makes a great argument for removing the archives search box, but no argument at all for deleting the template. It conveys a useful point, and its role in doing so is not duplicated by other templates (for example, contentious-topic banners are restricted to formal contentious topics). jp×g 23:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator hadn’t provided a rationale why this template with 5000 transclusions needs to be deleted. It’s not the same as the contentious topics banner and the search bar can just be removed. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies to templates too. Dronebogus (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's perfectly fine as is. ~ HAL333 01:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge make the warning a subtemplate, and a plain box without the search, that attaches above the archivebox search box and TALKHEADER. Similar to how BLP and BLPO attaches above WPBS -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a good difference in stylistic choice between the two templates, and we should leave users free to make that stylistic choice. Additionally, it has a purpose that the archives themselves don't: to explicitly note where previous discussions have been especially tedious. This can be used on paces that are well outside of the ((Contentious topics)) scope (i.e. not subject to arbitration restrictions), so the nominator's argument that this is entirely redundant seems to be made in error. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 14:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful template which has and has always had a |search=no parameter. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 00:34, 13 August 2023 (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).