The result of the discussion was no consensus. There appears to be a fundamental disagreement over whether we should provide "canned" summaries in the first place, with participants leaning towards improving the boilerplate text and altering the behaviour of some of the template's parameters as a compromise solution. For a list of all images where this template has been substituted, see [1]. Alakzi ( talk) 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
As with the recent television screenshot template (which is now in the process of being deleted) and others of a similar ilk, this template should be deleted because it is a template rationale for a class of non-free media for which "canned" rationales are not appropriate. Unlike, say, non-free album covers on album articles or non-free logos on pages about corporations, there is no presumption in favour of non-free screenshots on video game pages. On the other hand, I'd say that there was a presumption in favour of non-free cover images. If a screenshot is justified (which is by no means a given!) it will require a specific, tailored rationale- what does this image add to that article. Template:Non-free use rationale should be sufficient for this; I cannot see that the nominated template serves any positive purpose. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete as author-requested [2]. — MusikAnimal talk 21:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright is confusing, especially for new users and users used to sites like Facebook, Tumblr, and Imgur where images are routinely uploaded without any sort of copyright or source information. Users should get the series of warnings before a block.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Removing speedy deletion notices, while disruptive, is a common mistake made by new editors and shouldn't be subject to a final warning.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that a single incident of violating
WP:NPOV is serious enough to warrant a final warning. Users should either get the series of warnings or get something like {{
uw-vandalism4im}}
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that a single incident of violating
WP:OR is serious enough enough to warrant a final warning. Users should either get the series of warnings or get something like {{
uw-vandalism4im}}
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Jenks24 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This template misrepresents
WP:SPOILER. Saying that we shouldn't add excessive details to plot summaries because "Wikipedia does not spoil every moment of stories by substituting originals" is plain false.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate as an only warning, since users would likely have no idea what the context is unless they already got a {{
uw-attempt2}}. It seems like this would be covered by {{
uw-vandalism4im}} anyway.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is terribly useful, as addition of unsourced content by itself is unlikely to be severe enough for an only warning (and if it is, it will likely fall under something like {{
Uw-vandalism4im}} or {{
Uw-biog4im}}.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Well, if this violates MOS:HIDDEN, so do the navboxes, so that's a non-starter. Are infobox track listings a navigational aid, or are they content? JG66 has correctly observed that in past nominations, the track listings were found to be redundant to song navboxes, which isn't the case here. I suggest holding an RfC to decide what's to be done about these track listings once and for all. Alakzi ( talk) 16:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Per precedent set by numerous such templates which are considered redundant, for eg: here. — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment. IndianBio, SMcCandlish, Frietjes: I get the impression that the issue of album-track templates being considered redundant has snowballed on a case-by-case basis (even if each case may contain a number of examples, admittedly), but has anyone raised it as a general point at project talk pages such as Music and Albums? In this instance, WP:Beatles might also be interested, because we have similar templates for all of the Beatles' albums, and for many of those by the former members (Dark Horse being just one example).
In the link supplied above, to a March 2013 discussion, someone advocates deletion of 18 templates saying: "these are redundant because each artist already has their own songs template." Well, I can't see that that's the case for all the artists in that discussion, actually … It's certainly not the case that there's a Beatles songs template, as we have for Rihanna and Britney Spears, two of the artists cited as precedents in 2013. Nor is there one for, say, Bob Dylan – another artist whose has many album-tracks templates, which appear in the infobox for the relevant song articles. So, from the pretty narrow sphere of music articles I work on, I see these album-tracks templates as popular, and necessary. But my point is, rather than picking off each example one by one, the subject should be discussed generally. Has/did anyone put the word out to Albums or Music in the past? It's a new one on me. I'm happy to go with whichever way it falls, but as explained, I want to ensure that as many editors as possible have been consulted on this. JG66 ( talk) 15:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
To reiterate, the main argument behind deleting the first artist's album-track templates (so far as I can see) was: "The templates are completely redundant to the better-designed Template:Rihanna songs which conveniently serves as the main form of nagivation for readers … there is no logic in having these templates so long as the former is in existence because it has the same info." Okay in the case of Rihanna, but not so with George Harrison, John Lennon, the Beatles, Bob Dylan and perhaps many others (and also, as mentioned, not necessarily either for all the artists relevant to the March 2013 discussion linked above).
I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, will probably do the same at WP Bob Dylan. Again, has this issue ever been brought up in a wider forum such as Music and Albums? From a quick skim through those project talk histories for Feb–March 2013, I can't see anything relevant. It doesn't seem as if even WP Rihanna were invited to contribute, nor WP Britney. JG66 ( talk) 16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete {{ Barquote}}. {{ Barquote}} is a style variant of {{ Quote}} with no additional functionality. There is some support here for merging the alternate style into {{ Quote}} as an option, but TfD is not the right venue for building consensus on the styling of blockquotes, which should be handled as a MOS issue. While that sounds a bit bureaucratic, the balance of arguments here favors the conclusion that widely used templates should not be hosts to low-usage variant styles in the absence of consensus for that style. Based on Frietjes' observations, and the Village Pump thread linked by SMcCandlish, it appears that a subsequent discussion on style and formatting improvements to {{ Quote}} may be needed. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Barquote with
Template:Quote.
Fork for variant style. If it is consensus that the new style should be adopted, it should be applied in our global CSS; or at least available as a switch in the more common template.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
{{Quote}}
to replace the current style; to apply it as an option that an be turned on; or to apply it by default, with an option to turn it off.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
{{Barquote}}
. We have no need to "merge" every random style idea someone has. Left and right indentation of block quotation is standard practice in text media. Vertical grey bars aren't standard in anything, it's just a "look, I know some CSS" experiment. If there were to be some site-wide change in block quotation style, that's something that would be determined at
WT:MOS or
WP:VPPRO, and implemented at
Mediawiki:Common.css. The last thing we need is a core template of this sort doing random stylistic things that people are applying inconsistently from article to article, even all over the place on the same page (we already have
one problem of this sort that needs to be dealt with, affecting hundreds of pages, despite MOS and the template's own documentation saying not to use it for block quotations).
WP is not your blog, nor a Web design sandboxing site. PS: See also
WP:TMPG: "Templates that ... substantially duplicate or hardcode the same functionality of established templates may fit the criteria for speedy deletion"; this template duplicates the block quotation functionality of {{
Quote}}
and then hardcodes a specific style for it (a style there is no consensus for).PS: It is actually fairly common for the font size of block quotations to be slightly smaller, and we could do the same to make them more clearly visible as block quotations, but that's a matter for one of the aforementioned forums to come to consensus about the principal motivation behind block quotation weirdness like what this template does is simply to make them look "more different" from the surrounding text. They're certainly not applying any kind of [external] standard, they're just different for difference's sake. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Expanded 22:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC); — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
<blockquote style="...">...</blockquote>
or {{
quote|style=...}}
to see if they're doing "hey, this is my blog and I'm gonna make it look WILD!" stuff. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
13:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Details ...
|
---|
The genesis of this thing is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Break. The discussion about this is mostly dominated by a WikiWand user, who knows no CSS, exclaiming "my problem (which I share with a lot of editors) is that I can't describe what I want, and I don't understand the language (floating, aligned, blockquote, cquote, table-based). I can only point to the outcome I'd like to achieve, which is the WikiWand look (right), so that I can place blockquotes in text boxes, with borders and no borders, different colours, different widths ...". I.e., it's someone playing "I want to use Wikipedia as a beginning Web design experimenting platform". This is not what WP is for. It's highly undesirable for people to be doing completely random stylistic things with block quotations on this site (even if, yes, it does need some professional Web designers to give the whole thing a lot more than a crude "Typography Refresh" so it looks more modern than 2005). Block quotations should almost always look exactly alike here, so people know instantly what they are even if they have not yet read a single word on the page and have just visually scanned it for a moment. The fact that someone or other likes this style and decided to make it a non-sandbox and apply it to the article article Night (book) doesn't mean there's suddenly a consensus that WP should have random block quotation looks-and-feels. PS: This colored-left-strip thing going on in this particlar template (a look which actually first appeared here in Template:Talkquote) is clearly just based on e-mail quoting in mailers, going back to Eurora and its virtually unusable "format=flowed" model of the late 1990s; it's a direct ripoff of that, and the furthest thing from modern. |
The result of the discussion was Delete. Both a a snow deletion and a G7 deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a newly created block template for "illegally promoting spam links to computer viruses". This sort of disruption is so exceedingly rare and specialized that it doesn't warrant its own custom template, and listing this custom template along with the commonly used ones only creates clutter. Our existing {{ uw-vblock}} template is already perfectly appropriate for this sort of vandalism. Psychonaut ( talk) 10:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Nyttend ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe this user warning template is useful. Apart from some significant issues with the wording (which conflates viruses in particular with malware in general, and which unduly focuses on legal issues specific to the US), I don't believe it's helpful to merely warn people actively attempting to disable or hijack the computers of readers and editors. This is the sort of behaviour where the perpetrators need to be indefinitely blocked immediately to prevent imminent harm to others. In those exceedingly rare cases where the behaviour was mischaracterized or unintentional, the issue can be sorted out after the block is in place. Psychonaut ( talk) 08:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi ( talk) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The subject of this template was deemed non-notable per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ JY (Artist), and I deleted the article. As such, there is no need for this template. I have also nominated Draft:DJ JY (Artist) for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:DJ JY (Artist) for the same reason. North America 1000 01:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#Template:Ankit Fadia. Alakzi ( talk) 15:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Why you think the template should be deleted. it only has two links 203.109.161.2 ( talk) 20:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There appears to be a fundamental disagreement over whether we should provide "canned" summaries in the first place, with participants leaning towards improving the boilerplate text and altering the behaviour of some of the template's parameters as a compromise solution. For a list of all images where this template has been substituted, see [1]. Alakzi ( talk) 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
As with the recent television screenshot template (which is now in the process of being deleted) and others of a similar ilk, this template should be deleted because it is a template rationale for a class of non-free media for which "canned" rationales are not appropriate. Unlike, say, non-free album covers on album articles or non-free logos on pages about corporations, there is no presumption in favour of non-free screenshots on video game pages. On the other hand, I'd say that there was a presumption in favour of non-free cover images. If a screenshot is justified (which is by no means a given!) it will require a specific, tailored rationale- what does this image add to that article. Template:Non-free use rationale should be sufficient for this; I cannot see that the nominated template serves any positive purpose. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete as author-requested [2]. — MusikAnimal talk 21:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright is confusing, especially for new users and users used to sites like Facebook, Tumblr, and Imgur where images are routinely uploaded without any sort of copyright or source information. Users should get the series of warnings before a block.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Removing speedy deletion notices, while disruptive, is a common mistake made by new editors and shouldn't be subject to a final warning.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that a single incident of violating
WP:NPOV is serious enough to warrant a final warning. Users should either get the series of warnings or get something like {{
uw-vandalism4im}}
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that a single incident of violating
WP:OR is serious enough enough to warrant a final warning. Users should either get the series of warnings or get something like {{
uw-vandalism4im}}
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Jenks24 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This template misrepresents
WP:SPOILER. Saying that we shouldn't add excessive details to plot summaries because "Wikipedia does not spoil every moment of stories by substituting originals" is plain false.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate as an only warning, since users would likely have no idea what the context is unless they already got a {{
uw-attempt2}}. It seems like this would be covered by {{
uw-vandalism4im}} anyway.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is terribly useful, as addition of unsourced content by itself is unlikely to be severe enough for an only warning (and if it is, it will likely fall under something like {{
Uw-vandalism4im}} or {{
Uw-biog4im}}.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
16:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Well, if this violates MOS:HIDDEN, so do the navboxes, so that's a non-starter. Are infobox track listings a navigational aid, or are they content? JG66 has correctly observed that in past nominations, the track listings were found to be redundant to song navboxes, which isn't the case here. I suggest holding an RfC to decide what's to be done about these track listings once and for all. Alakzi ( talk) 16:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Per precedent set by numerous such templates which are considered redundant, for eg: here. — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment. IndianBio, SMcCandlish, Frietjes: I get the impression that the issue of album-track templates being considered redundant has snowballed on a case-by-case basis (even if each case may contain a number of examples, admittedly), but has anyone raised it as a general point at project talk pages such as Music and Albums? In this instance, WP:Beatles might also be interested, because we have similar templates for all of the Beatles' albums, and for many of those by the former members (Dark Horse being just one example).
In the link supplied above, to a March 2013 discussion, someone advocates deletion of 18 templates saying: "these are redundant because each artist already has their own songs template." Well, I can't see that that's the case for all the artists in that discussion, actually … It's certainly not the case that there's a Beatles songs template, as we have for Rihanna and Britney Spears, two of the artists cited as precedents in 2013. Nor is there one for, say, Bob Dylan – another artist whose has many album-tracks templates, which appear in the infobox for the relevant song articles. So, from the pretty narrow sphere of music articles I work on, I see these album-tracks templates as popular, and necessary. But my point is, rather than picking off each example one by one, the subject should be discussed generally. Has/did anyone put the word out to Albums or Music in the past? It's a new one on me. I'm happy to go with whichever way it falls, but as explained, I want to ensure that as many editors as possible have been consulted on this. JG66 ( talk) 15:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
To reiterate, the main argument behind deleting the first artist's album-track templates (so far as I can see) was: "The templates are completely redundant to the better-designed Template:Rihanna songs which conveniently serves as the main form of nagivation for readers … there is no logic in having these templates so long as the former is in existence because it has the same info." Okay in the case of Rihanna, but not so with George Harrison, John Lennon, the Beatles, Bob Dylan and perhaps many others (and also, as mentioned, not necessarily either for all the artists relevant to the March 2013 discussion linked above).
I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, will probably do the same at WP Bob Dylan. Again, has this issue ever been brought up in a wider forum such as Music and Albums? From a quick skim through those project talk histories for Feb–March 2013, I can't see anything relevant. It doesn't seem as if even WP Rihanna were invited to contribute, nor WP Britney. JG66 ( talk) 16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete {{ Barquote}}. {{ Barquote}} is a style variant of {{ Quote}} with no additional functionality. There is some support here for merging the alternate style into {{ Quote}} as an option, but TfD is not the right venue for building consensus on the styling of blockquotes, which should be handled as a MOS issue. While that sounds a bit bureaucratic, the balance of arguments here favors the conclusion that widely used templates should not be hosts to low-usage variant styles in the absence of consensus for that style. Based on Frietjes' observations, and the Village Pump thread linked by SMcCandlish, it appears that a subsequent discussion on style and formatting improvements to {{ Quote}} may be needed. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Barquote with
Template:Quote.
Fork for variant style. If it is consensus that the new style should be adopted, it should be applied in our global CSS; or at least available as a switch in the more common template.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
11:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
{{Quote}}
to replace the current style; to apply it as an option that an be turned on; or to apply it by default, with an option to turn it off.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
{{Barquote}}
. We have no need to "merge" every random style idea someone has. Left and right indentation of block quotation is standard practice in text media. Vertical grey bars aren't standard in anything, it's just a "look, I know some CSS" experiment. If there were to be some site-wide change in block quotation style, that's something that would be determined at
WT:MOS or
WP:VPPRO, and implemented at
Mediawiki:Common.css. The last thing we need is a core template of this sort doing random stylistic things that people are applying inconsistently from article to article, even all over the place on the same page (we already have
one problem of this sort that needs to be dealt with, affecting hundreds of pages, despite MOS and the template's own documentation saying not to use it for block quotations).
WP is not your blog, nor a Web design sandboxing site. PS: See also
WP:TMPG: "Templates that ... substantially duplicate or hardcode the same functionality of established templates may fit the criteria for speedy deletion"; this template duplicates the block quotation functionality of {{
Quote}}
and then hardcodes a specific style for it (a style there is no consensus for).PS: It is actually fairly common for the font size of block quotations to be slightly smaller, and we could do the same to make them more clearly visible as block quotations, but that's a matter for one of the aforementioned forums to come to consensus about the principal motivation behind block quotation weirdness like what this template does is simply to make them look "more different" from the surrounding text. They're certainly not applying any kind of [external] standard, they're just different for difference's sake. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Expanded 22:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC); — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
<blockquote style="...">...</blockquote>
or {{
quote|style=...}}
to see if they're doing "hey, this is my blog and I'm gonna make it look WILD!" stuff. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
13:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Details ...
|
---|
The genesis of this thing is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Break. The discussion about this is mostly dominated by a WikiWand user, who knows no CSS, exclaiming "my problem (which I share with a lot of editors) is that I can't describe what I want, and I don't understand the language (floating, aligned, blockquote, cquote, table-based). I can only point to the outcome I'd like to achieve, which is the WikiWand look (right), so that I can place blockquotes in text boxes, with borders and no borders, different colours, different widths ...". I.e., it's someone playing "I want to use Wikipedia as a beginning Web design experimenting platform". This is not what WP is for. It's highly undesirable for people to be doing completely random stylistic things with block quotations on this site (even if, yes, it does need some professional Web designers to give the whole thing a lot more than a crude "Typography Refresh" so it looks more modern than 2005). Block quotations should almost always look exactly alike here, so people know instantly what they are even if they have not yet read a single word on the page and have just visually scanned it for a moment. The fact that someone or other likes this style and decided to make it a non-sandbox and apply it to the article article Night (book) doesn't mean there's suddenly a consensus that WP should have random block quotation looks-and-feels. PS: This colored-left-strip thing going on in this particlar template (a look which actually first appeared here in Template:Talkquote) is clearly just based on e-mail quoting in mailers, going back to Eurora and its virtually unusable "format=flowed" model of the late 1990s; it's a direct ripoff of that, and the furthest thing from modern. |
The result of the discussion was Delete. Both a a snow deletion and a G7 deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a newly created block template for "illegally promoting spam links to computer viruses". This sort of disruption is so exceedingly rare and specialized that it doesn't warrant its own custom template, and listing this custom template along with the commonly used ones only creates clutter. Our existing {{ uw-vblock}} template is already perfectly appropriate for this sort of vandalism. Psychonaut ( talk) 10:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Nyttend ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe this user warning template is useful. Apart from some significant issues with the wording (which conflates viruses in particular with malware in general, and which unduly focuses on legal issues specific to the US), I don't believe it's helpful to merely warn people actively attempting to disable or hijack the computers of readers and editors. This is the sort of behaviour where the perpetrators need to be indefinitely blocked immediately to prevent imminent harm to others. In those exceedingly rare cases where the behaviour was mischaracterized or unintentional, the issue can be sorted out after the block is in place. Psychonaut ( talk) 08:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi ( talk) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The subject of this template was deemed non-notable per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ JY (Artist), and I deleted the article. As such, there is no need for this template. I have also nominated Draft:DJ JY (Artist) for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:DJ JY (Artist) for the same reason. North America 1000 01:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#Template:Ankit Fadia. Alakzi ( talk) 15:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Why you think the template should be deleted. it only has two links 203.109.161.2 ( talk) 20:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)