< February 11
February 13 >

February 12

Template:Susan Stryker

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am a probably a lot more sympathetic than the average editor about red links in nav boxes—I believe they may encourage article creation in an undercovered field, and use them myself—I limit them to nav boxes which have at least a handful of blue links that could be useful in the present, and where the red links are all of topics that are notable. If the author has done the legwork to assure that all the red links are notable and there is a clear intent to develop at least some of these into articles fairly soon, I would withdraw this; but somewhere there is a limit to the usefulness of nav boxes that only contain a single blue link. We already have Susan Stryker#Bibliography, which contains the same info (and Susan Stryker#Filmography, which contains even more). Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. If you want me to showcase their notability, that's fair. I'll be doing it one by one though, since this is a lot of work.
  • Gay by the Bay
So there's the first one. SilverserenC 22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one is more borderline, so that's up to you if it meets notability requirements.
  • Queer Pulp
There's the second one. SilverserenC 23:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, could and probably should combine the second version of this one with the first anyways in one article, unless the sequel ends up having a long of detail that would be a good reason for splitting at that point.
  • The Transgender Studies Reader
So combining those two, that would be the end of the books. SilverserenC 23:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Onto the films!
  • Screaming Queens
First film. I'll have to take a bit of a break, but I'll be back within the hour. SilverserenC 23:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything meaningful for the other two films, so I think they should be removed. SilverserenC 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of venue or style, I'll believe what you say you found if you just summarize it here; I don't think anyone (least of all me) is asking for this information to be listed in an Afd, although they'd be really helpful on the Talk page, or in "Further reading" at the article. Consider moving and linking to it? Since you've already done the work, would be a shame to have it archived eventually here, instead of at the article. Mathglot (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Create the articles first then create the navigation template, to navigate between the articles. Gonnym (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, navboxes are for navigation between existing articles. Red links are fine in the main article, but not helpful in the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Silver seren has shown that most the red links are notable, it should be kept to encourage people to create those articles. The non-notable links can be removed from the template if needed. Theooolone (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:@Bureaucrats

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is used to send echo notifications to entire usergroup of users, who have not asked for this functionality. The bureaucrats have a dedicated noticeboard for matters that need their attention. Use of such a distribution list rather than a noticeboard means that even matters that are resolved are left on notice for everyone in that group to check on. Could you imagine saying, "@AnyOtheruserGroup here is some work that I'd like one of you to work on?" — xaosflux Talk 16:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It being a group is something of a strawman since it's a user group of fewer than 20 editors. I don't think it's breaking anything to allow a group with specific tasks immediate notification of something pertaining to those tasks. It's not unusual for other groups of editors (cf. ((@FAC)), ((@ArbCom)), ((@MILHIST)), ((@ArbComClerks)), among others) to maintain a collective echo, even while having their own noticeboards as the crats do. It's rarely enough used that I think we can guarantee no crat who actively dislikes it will become overburdened with pings; it might also encourage some particularly inactive member of that usergroup to become active, or at least allow them to make the occasional edit. It's odd that we would want to make it harder for people who may already have difficulty contributing to contribute more. At least this way, we know they have had notice that they could pop in and do something useful.
Bearing in mind that this nomination is based on this discussion, I'd note that I used echo just previously, albeit over something more important (blatant trolling/abuse), and, thanks to the template, it was removed literally 20 minutes later. So, the template worked. Minimal fuss, not hordes of people all posting the same message to the same noticeboard, just one ping, which is equally open to being ignored as acted upon, per volunteer. ——Serial 16:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see it would be generally appropriate to @echo 19 people into a discussion that they aren't already in. And others wouldn't need to repeat a message at a noticeboard, it would already be there so wouldn't need to be duplicated (e.g. You don't list the same person at AIV that is already there). — xaosflux Talk 16:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If every crat realistically watched the noticeboard, I'd accept the first point, but for the second, we don't have to go too far back to find a pile on of people all saying the same thing. Still, you've made your nom and I've responded. Cheers, ——Serial 16:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, we can disagree - and as long as opt-out isn't an issue there's a bit more lee-way (I'd much rather one opt-out from this template then just disable echo notification for all mentions). — xaosflux Talk 16:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Serial's position here. The ping should be used judiciously, but it seems like a useful template to exist. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have the affected parties been notified about this discussion? It seems like it might be useful to use the template to ping them from here, strangely enough. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did notify WP:BN. — xaosflux Talk 16:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was upset when @ArbCom got created and so I'm sympathetic to what Xaosflux expresses here. But given how ArbCom's template ultimately played out in practice I'm less sold that this needs to be deleted - even 1 ping a month doesn't strike me as excessive relative to the benefits pointed out by SN. And I'm even less sold given a recent inability to get any crat to acknowledge multiple requests for action when posting at the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard it seems like SerialNumber has it right. I'd suggest that perhaps the more productive conversation would be for the crats to have a conversation with the community about their lack of desire to moderate RfA rather than getting annoyed when someone pings them to do so given current consensus on that topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems wrong to have a template that encourages pinging a group of users who have not collectively or individually agreed to receiving pings in such a manner. I get that we have similar templates for pinging arbs, FAC coords, BAG members, etc – but in all of those cases, I believe the template was created following a discussion between members of the group. This template, on the other hand, seems to be created unilaterally by someone who isn't a crat. – SD0001 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will formally note that the @ArbCom template was not discussed prior to creation though it was by a then arb. Only noted after creation. So while I objected when it was raised, I also decided to let it play out and it hasn't been as bad as I thought. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a ‘crat I don’t mind the existence of this template or being pinged, as long as it’s not being used excessively or frivolously, which at this point (imo) it doesn’t seem to be. I won’t speak for other bureaucrats, though. I presume if any bureaucrat wants to opt out of these notifications they can just edit the template and leave an edit summary explaining what they’re doing. 28bytes (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the community feel that Crats are not moderating RfAs in a timely matter, then I feel that is a solid argument for appointing more Crats rather than pinging Crats who are possibly not available. It is a reflection on our system that those who are appointed as Crats tend to be those who have been on Wikipedia long enough to establish considerable trust, and so may be nearing the end of their active time on Wikipedia. It would be helpful if a few active and committed users, particularly those comfortable with moderating RfAs, volunteered to become Crats. SilkTork (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a crat, I can't say I worry about this template. I certainly don't mind a ping for any reason so long as it's not excessive. Maybe just have the ability to opt-out if you don't want the notification. I do keep track of RfA as it happens anyway, but a ping to something specific seems fine, especially if we think that we should be mediating the actual text of an RfA. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2024 Winter Youth Olympics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 05:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough blue links to justify a template, the only valid blue links are for bid process and medal table articles (rest are either red links, redirects to one of those 3 articles, or general links like IOC and KOC that don't enable any navigation about this event). Joseph2302 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More