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).
Propose mergingTemplate:Students rights sidebar with Template:Youth rights sidebar.
Both get low traffic and both are of similar subject matters, they should just merge. I made both of them, I seem to be the only wikipedian who really cares about them and I realize how bad they are. Lets just merge and start over. Maybe this time most of the links will be to articles of worth. Mangokeylime (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose students are not the same things as youths. Student rights are not the same thing as youth rights. Youths do not need to attend school. Students do not need to be youths. Indeed many mass transit organizations define students as younger than 25 and in school, which in the top end is not a youth. Student protests are usually done by university students, and university students are usually no longer youths. Highschool dropouts immediately after dropping out are not students but are youths. Schooling ends in many parts of the world long before a youth becomes an adult, so these are also not students. Age of majority and COPPA have nothing to do with students, etc. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge I also oppose the merge of Template:Students rights sidebar with Template:Youth rights sidebar. Students deal with a natural person's legal relationship to a corporate entity for purposes of education, whereas Youth deals with the rights of legal minors. While there could be some overlap, that alone does not justify their merge. Crice88 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
This template is used on only three pages. Its purpose is not clear. Template:Historical is usually used in the types of circumstances suggested by this template. What one can see if one looks at "what links here" is that one editor, the template creator, has been suggesting that this template be used on various MfDs. Essentially, it is a promotional template. He is now pushing for it to be used on an essay page, which makes no sense. I would suggest that we rid ourselves of this duplicate WP:SOAP template. RGloucester — ☎ 14:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - superceded by other templates with an unclear purpose and minimal usage. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note that this !vote appears to be a random collection of deletion rationale words unconnected to the template. "Supersede by other templates" is random nonsense. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's just poorly punctuated and telegraphic, like a typical text message. It obviously means "superseded by other templates; [it is] with an unclear purpose; [it has] minimal usage". — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is rarely used because things are rarely shut down. Even when shut down, custom tags are sometimes used instead of this simple template. However, do note, it is used. Also, is has been directly referred to as an option in numerous other discussions.
The purpose is very simple and clear. Given that Wikipedian have an affection for taggery by template, and that no other template is suitable for a page that never held consensus (implied by {{Historical}}) and was not policy of guideline ({{Failed}}, MfD participants in discussions to shut down pages or processes or whatever (typically weird things that defy easy description) needed the basic concept of what it means to shut down permanently and mark it so.
{{Historical}} "Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear" is not applicable to these sorts of pages that never were relevant, and never did not consensus of any kind.
Allegations of promotion and SOAP are ridiculous. Look at the template. It is just the simplest of tags, intended to cater for linking to the discussion that led to the shut down decision.
"pushing for it to be used on an essay page". What? Well, I have !voted at the MfD if that is what he means by "pushing". The page in question is most certainly not an essay. It is a WikiProject subpage, multiply authored, with an intention (allegedly improper) to effect change.
It is not superseded or redundant with any other template.
I have no "COI". Even if this template were used on that page, it would have the same effect as deletion or userfication, so I have no reason to care about that. Keep in mind that you, the template creator, are the only one who has "proposed" that it be used. Are we to say that you have a "COI"? That page was NOT a WikiProject subpage, which you are aware of, because both I and the person who moved it into the project space told you so. I want this template deleted because it is a duplicate. It has minimal usage, the wording it uses is confusing, and it seems to exist only to serve your own purposes. There is no community consensus that "shutting down" pages through MfD as a process exists, and Template:Historical is used in any relevant circumstances. RGloucester — ☎ 06:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a COI, you can better achieve your objective at MfD if this option goes away. It is quite normal to not recognize one's own COI.
Use of this template would not be the same as deletion or userfication. Deletion means there is no record of this bad idea. Userfication (for which author?) means they can continue as they please, or {{db-u1}} to hide there actions recorded in it.
Technically, it is currently a WikiProject subpage. If archived, the question of where to keep it is one for the MfD discussion. There is logic to its current location.
It exists to highlight and facilitate the option of archiving bad ideas. In principle, this is desirable because deletion of bad ideas dooms the community to repeat the mistakes.
Do you really find the wording confusing? You are the first to say so.
There is precedent for MfD to shut down activities. Typically is it done via userfication (de facto rejection) or by deletion, but this facilitates another option, and its use ha precedence. Search MfD for "closed down". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My only "objective" in the AfD is to make it clear that that page is not any kind of guideline, so it does not cause more damage, and this template would do that. If you had suggested using the bog standard Template:Historical, I would've accepted that as a viable alternative. You did not. Instead, you proposed using a template of your own creation, strangely worded to deal with "processes", when that page was not a process. You've just changed the wording, but said change doesn't make the purpose of the template any more clear. If you want to set up a new process to "close down" pages through MfD, go to the village pump and get consensus for that and a set of accompanying templates. For now, no such process exists. Instead, this template and that concept are promotional ideas that are not supported by anyone other than yourself. Sure, plenty of pages have been marked historical, or in your terms "closed down", but this concept on your part is something different. RGloucester — ☎ 06:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, {{Historical}} is the same principle. I used to suggest it at MfD. But there were sometime objections, on the basis that {{Historical}} implies that there was previous Historical use or consensus. So I created this template, similar but without the past use or consensus implication. If has proposed and occasionally used. The problem occurred more frequently with WikiProject deletion discussions, that that ended up with Template:WikiProject status, none of its options being suitable for the page you are MfDing, and so I did not even mention it. However, the family of taggery templates for old things was refined and is stable, and there is no good reason to throw away this one. These things happened long ago, there is no sense in going to a village pump to re-authorize them as there is no actual problem with them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good reason to throw away this one, in that it has no community consensus behind it, it is disruptive, and is a direct duplicate of the "historical" template. It has been "proposed and used occasionally" by its creator, who injects it into discussions where it does not belong. The historical template allows for one to add notes, so that one would not have the problem you mention. RGloucester — ☎ 14:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RG, your continued insistence on "disruptive" and "duplicate" come across only as perverse. In how does it disrupt what? Duplicate? It was modelled on {{Historical}}, yes, but altered to make it apply to things that Historical was agreed to not be applicable. The Historical template has never been applicable to things that never were historically active. This template fills that gap. Now sure, other solutions were possible. The wording of the historical template could be altered, but that might mess up its earlier uses. Extra parameters could have been added, much as done with the Inactive WikiProject tag. However, this Closed down template is much simpler a solution.
Even if another template is modified to include archives of rejected activities, this template should not be deleted, but redirected. As we did with {{Rejected}}. As I think we learned from that discussion, simpler templates are better.
With regards to you thinking that mention of this template in your MfD nomination does not belong, firstly nonsense, secondly that is for you to argue in the MfD.
All templates can be substituted and customised. That is not a reason for deletion of this template. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to invent new Wikipedia processes to suit your own purposes. Delete this self-promotional WP:SOAP. RGloucester — ☎ 05:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a tag, not a process. The rest of your nonsense "self-promotional WP:SOAP" I can't even understand how you think it applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not reading all of that, just responding to SJ's bullet points. WP:COI has no applicability to this; COI is about bringing off-WP interests to WP to try to skew our content here. It's not about usage numbers; this simply is not being used on anything that was in fact shut down by the community as far as I can tell, such as WP:Esperanza, this little canvassing factory, or WP:Article Incubator, just for starters (but note that we have no consistent process for this, so this tag is essentially the cart before the horse). A simple, clear purpose doesn't make something automatically worthy, and obviously not everyone agrees it's simple and clear. anyway. Your analysis of what the other templates are for is faulty (more on that below). More than one editor thinks the template has some kind of "agenda" problem, not just RG, even if it's not WP:SOAP exactly. The MfD in question is over, and closed as "delete", so we can just drop it and move on. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't necessarily call what SmokeyJoe is doing soapboxing, though someone proposing the use of a template they created themselves is unfortunately asking for such accusations. I don't see anything wrong with the template, per se, but I know some editors like to keep very few pages archive-tagged like this, and would have no use for this tag. Local concensus has been to use it on certain pages with apparently no help from the creator. If I see proposed replacements for these pages, I will likely !vote delete if they largely respect the local concensus. For instance, I don't think it adds anything to Wikipedia:In the news/Future events, where it was added by User:Anc516 after being suggested by User:LukeSurl. If they don't mind, I think it can be removed from that page. It already has {{Historical}}, which includes the discussion link. User:Feedback tagged another page in Special:Diff/546923796 without mentioning a discussion. I assume {{Historical}} would work there. The others are Article Incubator pages, which seem to be the intended place for this tag. I'll try to look into them a little later. —PC-XT+ 01:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe User:Yunshui, who has closed MfDs, is familiar enough with this template to have contrasted it with {{Historical}} in 2013, and may have a more informed opinion. —PC-XT+ 02:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IthinkUser:Soni was the one who decided how to tag Article Incubator. The discussion didn't specify which tag to use, so another one may be appropriate. —PC-XT+ 02:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added previous discussions in the box at the top. Some of them had ideas to do with this template. I wouldn't mind userfication if we replace the transclusions. —PC-XT+ 02:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a simple template for a small niche. It was something missing so I made it. Sure, other solutions are possible, but why bother? If this is deleted, what is the tag to use for archiving something shut down that was not actually ever functional, as template:Historical requires? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I like it. It has its uses, and I don't see any alternative that will replace it. User:PC-XT reminded me that I used it and suggested that {{Historical}} would've been an appropriate replacement. I disagree. The page I tagged as closed down was not discontinued because of "unclear consensus" as the template suggests and it does not fit any of the examples listed in WP:HISTORICAL (demotions, instruction creep, or redundant pages). This template works fine and I don't see any reason why we need to get trigger-happy to kill something that isn't doing any harm to anyone.Feedback 23:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I didn't know of the circumstances, so had to assume, but assumptions are not always right. {{Historical}} has been used for some things with a clear consensus that they are no longer relevant. This template is more specific. {{Historical}} has |comment=, but still uses the somewhat confusing "Either" wording. —PC-XT+ 02:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC) {{historical|brief=yes}} gives a message without the "Either" wording, instead saying it is "currently inactive". —PC-XT+ 03:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The historical template allows for customisation, and is used in nearly all cases similar to what is the proposed use for this template. There is no need to have two separate templates, one of which has no consensus behind it and which is purporting the existence of a "close down" process. RGloucester — ☎ 21:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template is for pages for which the very term "Historical" is not appropriate. The image of the red cross is very important. Customising the Historical template could work, but it would be essentially converting it completely into something else. Also, it is not actually closest related to or derived from {{Historical}}, but {{Failed}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can think of a number of pages I'd love to put this on. And that's the problem. It's an unnecessary pejorative label, a way to rub salt in a wound, to be a WP:DICKWP:JERK to make a point. Depending on the particular circumstance, {{Historical}}or{{Rejected}} already have every imaginable legitimate use of this template covered, so this serves nothing but a WP:POLEMIC purpose. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see using it, too. But then I can't help being a Dick. Dicklyon (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With a leonine roar. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:SMcCandlish, that was not a considered contribution was it? Points you make are refuted above. {{rejected}} (has redirected to {{failed}} for years is only for policies and guidelines. Historical carries the implication that the page once was used with consensus. {{Closed down}} has wording that very clearly required a formal discussion, meaning the template cannot be used unilaterally. It is very easy to image legitimate uses (contrary to your assertion), examples are found by using the "what links here" tool. Probably most importantly is the existence of the template as an option. The reason I created the template was because in MfD discussions, some !voters would be torn by a false dichotomy that the challenged page must be either deleted or kept, simple because no applicable archive template existed. Some few things should be shut down without the history being deleted, with a blunt tag warning newcomers that this page is non gratia. Sometimes, even if not often. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I rebut your refutation. {{Rejected}} a.k.a. {{Failed proposal}} is for proposals, formal and otherwise; it's not for policies or guidelines at all. For something that's been shelved that was not a proposal, but was "shut down" after lengthy operation like WP:Esperanza was, we have {{Historical}}, or it can simply be deleted if we have no need to even keep it as historical and it's just trash (my favorite example). There is no need for a third template. If it's rejected when the community first examines it in any earnest, then it's Rejected, or just deleted. If it's rejected after it was put in place and used for a while, then it's Historical, or just deleted.
Idid look at what is transcluding this template, and it's very close to nothing, every single one of which can be replaced with {{Historical}}, or in two cases the pages can be speedily deleted under multiple criteria:
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/History – The entire WP:Article Incubator is tagged {{Historical}}, with a pointer to the new process at WP:Drafts. It is pointless to have a special, confusing, and punitive-sounding tag just to use on the forgotten sub-pages of one old process, when they can themselves be tagged with {{Historical}} or simply removed if they don't serve any historical purpose.
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Subpage – Speedily delete. This was intended to be a transcluded example, but was not developed and is not transcluded anywhere; it's a 2009 test page. It serves no purpose at all, including anything historical.
In other cases, {{Failed proposal}} / {{Rejected}} can be used (and it need not be only for something that was formally labelled {{Proposal}}; any bad idea qualifies: if the pseudo-wikiproject the deletion of which I linked to above had been kept and tagged to "make an example" of wikiproject abuse, {{Rejected}} would have been the tag for it). {{Historical}}'s output can be customized, as well, for whatever particular case arises. Remember WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY; we don't need to add another special level of red-tape templates. WP:Consensus policy allows for consensus to change; this contraindicates permanently branding things as shut down like a crime ring. If we're certain it's trash and should not come back, just delete it. If it's at a problematic name that will inspire re-creation, WP:SALT it. Nothing new is needed to deal with it.
If this were to be kept, it should be consistently applied to all things that clearly qualify for it, like Esperanza and AI, various wikiprojects that were closed for cause not just inactivity, anything userspaced for being anti-consensus activism (including that debacle that used to be at MOS:REGISTER, and several "concision is #1!" attempts someone made a year or so ago to undermine WP:AT policy). Secondarily, it should not be used on miscellaneous subpage junk, which can be simply deleted or tagged {{historical}}, like those AI subpages. No separate discussion ever concluded that the community forcibly closed down AI/History or AI/Assessment individually as problematic in their own right, they simply went dark with the AI project (and they may in fact be of historical interest, e.g. to compare the new process with the old one to see what has improved). Using the template on a sport wikiproject newsletter no one wants to bother with is a misstatement of the facts; anyone can [re]start up one whenever they feel like devoting the time to it, and there is no site-wide consensus barrier to someone doing that for any particular topical scope. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that SMcCandlish. You got me on {{rejected}} being for failed proposals for policy, not for actual policy. You are also quite right about the current used of the closed down template. Cases where the language was appriately used did not go on to actually use the template, and most of the actual uses should use {{historical}} instead.
I am partial to your idea that {{Failed proposal}} can be used more broadly, and always was. However, I was concerned about the categorisation of failed serious proposals being polluted with failed junk. That concern seems unfounded when I look into it, as it is already a mess. I am starting to feel persuaded that current uses should be changed, and that this template considered redundant to {{Failed proposal}}.
Would you mind if we redirected instead of deleting? I prefer to be able to see my edit history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure. I actually meant to suggest that, though the current (non-speedied) cases look like they need to be changed to Historical. (There may have been prior uses someone removed; I wasn't tracking it the whole time.) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move without redirecttoUser:SmokeyJoe/Closed down per SMC's rationale and SJ's request to keep his edit history. --Izno (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template for a non-notable sports team, not enough valid bluelinks. GiantSnowman 12:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of links just link to various sections of the parent article. Fenix down (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable team doesn't need its own navbox template, especially when half the links return to the main article, thus defeating the whole point of the navbox. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Unused, and seems unlikely to be used per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Better known templates are available for specifying who a message is for ({{ping}}, {{to}}) or for indicating (if appropriate) mood (Wikipedia:Emoticons, some of the Image with comment templates, or plain wikitext). Or userfy it if the creator Anyeverybody wants it in their userspace. Evad37[talk] 06:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and not likely needed with a short name that something else could possibly use, someday —PC-XT+ 23:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Unused. It's actually important that we eliminate these random redirects to pull quote templates, since they are a vector for ignoring MOS:QUOTE and abusing pull quote templates for block quotations in mainspace. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? I'm not sure what you mean by 'a vector for abusing MOS:QUOTE'; however, it sounds as if you think that editors who don't follow the MOS are pathogens and the only way to 'control' them is to make it harder for people to find and use the template that they are (correct to your style standards or not) trying to find. That comes off as rather disrespectful (with a terrifying nod toward the Ministry of Truth) don't you think?
In any case, this redirect clearly seems common enough that it should go somewhere: perhaps to Template:Quote (which is, an 'easier to type and is more wiki-like than the equivalent HTML <blockquote>...</blockquote>'.) Although I personally feel that the current redirect, to what many people think of when they imagine a block quote, is appropriate. Crazynast 07:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this now appears at RfD, you may want to comment there -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
wrong venue, redirects are discussed at WP:RFD. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
This team disbanded in 2012, which means a roster template is not needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
This is apparently in a foreign language. It's only used in a sandbox. I think it may be a test, but wasn't sure enough to speedy it on my own. —PC-XT+ 00:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No English content, no information about why it should be; content appears to be a table for singers, so should not ever be written in Korean instead of English. English Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for non-English content -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was relisttoMar 3. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
