![]() | This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
I'd like to propose this template for deletion; it seems to be harmful in that it promotes the false idea that the observations of non-admins are significantly different and less valuable than admins'. Thoughts? ElKevbo ( talk) 19:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have supremely expanded the template. It now uses the #switch parser function. Feel free to revert and tell me if you don't like it. -- Σ ☭★ 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This template has now gone through MFD twice, and in both cases it has received a "no consensus" closure. That being the case, I think that we should discuss the use and existence of this template for a while, in order to reach some sort of consensus on what should be done with it.
The discussion over deleting the template revolves around a couple of central points: First, the opinion that this template works to perpetuate a false dichotomy between editors without sysop privileges and editors who are in the administrators group (For full disclosure here, I feel that this is true personally). The counter to that is the opinion that it is important to distinguish non-administrators in certain venues, primarily because it is seen as lessening confusion.
If there are additional topics to be discussed, or any comments that anyone would like to make in order to expand those rationals, I for one would like to see them. Thanks,
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
20:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I asked
Plastikspork (
talk ·
contribs) if he would care to add to his closing rational, and he replied on his talk page:
20:38, April 17, 2012, so I wanted to say thank you to Plastikspork for that. The one additional observation that I noticed he makes there is that the marking of a comment is voluntary, and performed by the person adding the comment. Marking others comments could be seen as disruptive. Those are valid observations, in my mind.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
15:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
If there's anything I've missed, or anything anyone would like to add, feel free to speak up.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
16:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've boldly added some usage notes to the documentation per the discussion here. As usual, feel free to tweak/revert/expand/whatever. 28bytes ( talk) 17:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is this being brough up just two weeks after MfD closure? Obviously there is no consensus to delete it, so just leave it be for a little while. MrLittleIrish (talk) © 19:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting the futility of this based on the fact that barely anyone uses this and it's gone through MfD twice in previous years, I don't know why this template has been limited to "observations" only! I mean, what if a non-admin wants to make a suggestion or a non-observational comment? (okay, semantics on the latter, but whatever.) I've drafted changes at User:Ansh666/Template:Non-admin observation to add a "type" parameter. If anyone sees this, could you look over it and see if it could work here? That is, if anyone cares... Ansh 6 6 6 20:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC) If it happens, I might actually use this!...
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "checkuser" to "CheckUser"; per Wikipedia:CheckUser it's the current capitalization. Thanks! — Frostly ( talk) 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
I'd like to propose this template for deletion; it seems to be harmful in that it promotes the false idea that the observations of non-admins are significantly different and less valuable than admins'. Thoughts? ElKevbo ( talk) 19:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have supremely expanded the template. It now uses the #switch parser function. Feel free to revert and tell me if you don't like it. -- Σ ☭★ 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This template has now gone through MFD twice, and in both cases it has received a "no consensus" closure. That being the case, I think that we should discuss the use and existence of this template for a while, in order to reach some sort of consensus on what should be done with it.
The discussion over deleting the template revolves around a couple of central points: First, the opinion that this template works to perpetuate a false dichotomy between editors without sysop privileges and editors who are in the administrators group (For full disclosure here, I feel that this is true personally). The counter to that is the opinion that it is important to distinguish non-administrators in certain venues, primarily because it is seen as lessening confusion.
If there are additional topics to be discussed, or any comments that anyone would like to make in order to expand those rationals, I for one would like to see them. Thanks,
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
20:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I asked
Plastikspork (
talk ·
contribs) if he would care to add to his closing rational, and he replied on his talk page:
20:38, April 17, 2012, so I wanted to say thank you to Plastikspork for that. The one additional observation that I noticed he makes there is that the marking of a comment is voluntary, and performed by the person adding the comment. Marking others comments could be seen as disruptive. Those are valid observations, in my mind.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
15:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
If there's anything I've missed, or anything anyone would like to add, feel free to speak up.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
16:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've boldly added some usage notes to the documentation per the discussion here. As usual, feel free to tweak/revert/expand/whatever. 28bytes ( talk) 17:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is this being brough up just two weeks after MfD closure? Obviously there is no consensus to delete it, so just leave it be for a little while. MrLittleIrish (talk) © 19:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting the futility of this based on the fact that barely anyone uses this and it's gone through MfD twice in previous years, I don't know why this template has been limited to "observations" only! I mean, what if a non-admin wants to make a suggestion or a non-observational comment? (okay, semantics on the latter, but whatever.) I've drafted changes at User:Ansh666/Template:Non-admin observation to add a "type" parameter. If anyone sees this, could you look over it and see if it could work here? That is, if anyone cares... Ansh 6 6 6 20:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC) If it happens, I might actually use this!...
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "checkuser" to "CheckUser"; per Wikipedia:CheckUser it's the current capitalization. Thanks! — Frostly ( talk) 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)