Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 February 12

 &lt; February 11 February 13 &gt;

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) 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, which contains the same info (and Susan Stryker, which contains even more). Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Susan Stryker


 * 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
 * "Book recounts the gay life from San Francisco's beginnings" by Robert Armstrong Newspapers.com, Star Tribune, March 31, 1996
 * "Focus on the Sensitive Q-Word" by Patricia Holt Newspapers.com, The San Francisco Examiner, April 14, 1996 (Part 2)
 * "Welcome to the Gay Area" by David Wiegand Newspapers.com, The San Francisco Examiner, April 14, 1996 (Part 2)
 * "Review: Gay by the Bay: A History of Queer Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, by Susan Stryker and Jim Van Buskirk" by Scott Bravmann, Pacific Historical Review (1997) 66 (1): 122–123
 * "Baywatch" by Chastity Bono, The Advocate, Apr 30, 1996
 * Drury, Doreen. ""The Gay Capital of the World:" Representing Gay and Lesbian History" Gay Community News Fall 1996: 22. ProQuest
 * Thompson, Mark. "Memory of Mecca" Lambda Book Report 07 1996: 10. ProQuest
 * So there's the first one. Silver  seren C 22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This one is more borderline, so that's up to you if it meets notability requirements.
 * Queer Pulp
 * "There's a 'Lavender Love Rumble' going on in Susan Stryker's 'Queer Pulp'" by Kimberly Chun, SFGate, Oct 30, 2001
 * "Fresh Squeeze With Pulp" by Michael Abernethy, PopMatters, 23 November 2008
 * "Pulp Paperbacks Printed on Demand?" by Claude Lalumière, Locus, 25 October 2001
 * "Gothic Queer Culture: Marginalized Communities and the Ghosts of Insidious Trauma" by Laura Westengard, U of Nebraska Press, Oct 1, 2019
 * Rogers, Michael. "The Great American Paperback: An Illustrated Tribute to Legends of the Book / Queer Pulp: Perverted Passions from the Gold Age of the Paperback" Library Journal 126.18 (2001): 92. ProQuest
 * "Queer Pulp; Perverted Passions from the Golden Age of the Paperback" Reference and Research Book News 16.4 (2001) ProQuest
 * There's the second one. Silver  seren C 23:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 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
 * Smith, Brice. "THE TRANSGENDER STUDIES READER" Women's Studies Quarterly 36.3 (2008): 318-20. ProQuest
 * Stone, Amy L. "The Transgender Studies Reader" Teaching Sociology 36.2 (2008): 179-80. ProQuest
 * Davis, Kevin. "THE TRANSGENDER STUDIES READER" Lambda Book Report Fall 2006: 16-7. ProQuest
 * Kimball, Ezekiel, and Yedalis Ruiz. "The Transgender Studies Reader 2" Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice 53.4 (2016): 473-5. ProQuest
 * "Transgender Studies Reader Edited by Susan Stryker and Aren Z. Aizura (review)" by Isaac West, QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 2014 pp. 162-164
 * "Looking backward while moving forward: Understanding future directions and acknowledging diverse histories: A review of The transgender studies reader 2" by Theodore Burnes, Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(1), 84–85
 * Ridinger, Robert. "Transgender Studies: Literature in an Evolving Field" Choice Reviews 59.7 (2022): 855-61. ProQuest
 * So combining those two, that would be the end of the books. Silver  seren C 23:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Onto the films!
 * Screaming Queens
 * Hall, P. "Screaming Queens: The Riot at Comptons Cafeteria" The Video Librarian Nov 01 2006 ProQuest
 * Artavia, David. "OUR SHARED FIGHT" The Advocate Jul 2020: 60-1. ProQuest
 * Rush, Kelly. "Pomona Professor's Transgender Film to Air on PBS" Inland Valley Daily Bulletin May 30 2006 ProQuest
 * "Stonewall wasn't the first LGBT riot" by Tommi Avicolli Mecca Newspapers.com, Seattle Gay News, October 5, 2007
 * "Transgendered moving forward" by Lisa Leff Newspapers.com, Santa Maria Times, June 25, 2006
 * "Honoring the 'Screaming Queens' of Compton's Cafeteria" by Holly J. McDede, KALW, February 28, 2018
 * "The Night That Trans Women Rioted for Their Rights at a Tenderloin Cafeteria" by Sarah Hotchkiss, KQED, Jul 21, 2016
 * "Compton's Cafeteria riot: a historic act of trans resistance, three years before Stonewall" by Sam Levin, The Guardian, 21 Jun 2019
 * "The Search for ‘Screaming Queens’: Remembering the Compton’s Cafeteria Riot", San Francisco Bay Times
 * First film. I'll have to take a bit of a break, but I'll be back within the hour. Silver  seren C 23:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything meaningful for the other two films, so I think they should be removed. Silver  seren C 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete. Create the articles first then create the navigation template, to navigate between the articles. Gonnym (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete or draftify until some of the above articles are created, with no prejudice toward recreation of the navbox when it is actually useful for navigation. The essay at WP:CREATEFIRST does a good job of explaining the reason for this order of operations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete In its current form, this navbox does not actually serve the purpose of assisting with navigation between related articles. No prejudice against recreation or undeletion when the other articles actually exist. The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. @ 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)


 * Delete per nomination. This is not about whether or not the links in the navbox are notable and can have articles created. This is about navigation and there is only one article outside the main topic. Not enough to navigate with. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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) 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)
 * @Bureaucrats
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I did notify WP:BN. — xaosflux  Talk 16:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * As per 28bytes, if you're not willing to respond to the sorts of mild emergencies where use of this template rather than a BN post is warranted, then you can opt out by removing yourself from it. It's not like bureaucrats are subject to reconfirmation so that doing so would make you look bad. —Cryptic 19:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's not like the OP hasn't done it before. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep it. I would rather get the odd ping for a non-critical issue that doesn't need the full BN treatment than miss out on something like SN's ping about problematic questions (and yes, that sort of "this question is problematic" issue does not need to go to WP:BN for a full discussion). Primefac (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 57 (3 time to 19 people) echo notifications in the last day from that one page seems a bit excessive to me and something that I think will lead to notification blindness. — xaosflux  Talk 19:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been used, otherwise, all of 6 times in the last year since it was created. And it's not "57 notifications", it was 3 pings per person. SN probably should have just edited their comment instead of writing a fresh one, but even then it's not that bad. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * May be off-by-one, but it's been used 6 times in the last week related to one discussion. This growing use is what spurned this discussion. — xaosflux  Talk 14:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it has been used once more. By one of your fellow admins. To call upon one of your fellow crats to take urgent action. Which they did action. And was action that no other crat was willing to take. Was that 'overusing' the template? If so, you should probably let them both know. Cheers!  ——Serial  17:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, I guess I'll lodge my keep !vote as one of the DYK admins – there's nothing preventing 'crats from opting out of the template, and it's a nice low-cost way of getting their attention without having to write up a whole thing at BN. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to comment again, but, here we are. Firstly, apologies for the third round of pings yesterday going out. I had to move my comment, and (I guess) I thought I had to re-sign it completely (so remove and replace it). Don't know why now... but of course the ping still went through. Sorry about that. But secondly, reading some of the concerns here, could they be alleviated by adding a form of words to the documentation? Something like, perhaps Bureaucrats not wishing to receive echo notifications via this template may wish to remove their usernames from the list at Template:@Bureaucrats. The template is not intended to alert Bureaucrats to common-or-garden tasks undertaken as part of their day-to-day role. Neither is it intended to alert them to an issue any other editor can resolve. In most cases there is no emergency, and a note at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard would probably suffice. This template should generally be used as a notification of a particular procedural or behavioral problem that would otherwise interfere with the smooth running of a process within their purview. With a link back to this discussion. Would that be an improvement?  ——Serial  20:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Expanding the /doc can't hurt. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps make it opt-in instead of opt-out. — xaosflux  Talk 20:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's already been created and used. There is zero point in blanking the template and forcing the 'crats to re-add themselves. Primefac (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Memberships change - the current crats have been informed of this at BN, but future ones could be given the choice. — xaosflux  Talk 22:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see a policy-based reason why the template itself must be deleted, nor is there a reason it has to exist. I'll defer to the consensus of 'crats, if they find it useful or not. In principle, I can see it being useful but allowing opt-out is a good change. I do agree that there should be more information on how it should be used, and perhaps an edit filter restricting usage for WP:BEANS reasons. If crats don't think retaining it is a good thing, the better solution would be to remove the usernames from it and tag as historical. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like this could be useful for pinging all the crats to a crat chat, or something like that. We should really leave it up to the crats though, so no bolded !vote from me. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This template was used twice in the comment section of the current rfa. Requests for adminship/Sdkb. I imagine those mass pings are what triggered this TFD, and could possibly be an argument that this template is being overused and bothering bureaucrats. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Being used twice in an RfA is hardly "overused", particularly as there are no guidelines to say otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , for precision, bothering a bureaucrat :) ...But more seriously, it's just been used again. By an admin. Regarding the removal of personal attacks. Precisely the thing it was intended for, honest!  ——Serial  18:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I know checkuser needed handles this in a different way (puts the page in a category, and then a bot adds a note somewhere); no opinion on which way is better, and no opinion on keep/delete - I'll defer to the Crats. One note, though.  If Crats can opt out - and I think they should be able to - then it should not be used to notify Crats of a Crat chat.  For those we generally want all hands on deck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that maybe a solution to my caveat is the creation of a @cratchat template that you can't opt out of. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Floquenbeam we would always use user talks (Bureaucrats/Message list) for official crat notifications, echo notifications are not considered reliable for anything important. — xaosflux  Talk 22:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * makes sense, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that, WP:ADMINACCT was recently changed to make it explicit that admins (and thus 'crats, in the absence of any specific policy to the contrary) are not required to have notifications enabled (although they are encouraged to note on their user page if they do not use them). Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's basically the same principle as AN/I, the way I see it.  ——Serial  01:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I notice that the documentation for this template currently lacks any advice about when to use or not use it. Given that inappropriate usage seems to be the primary concern, should this survive this TfD I think it'd help to improve the documentation. We could even consider adding a warning akin to the one used by Slack or (someday) an edit check. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , yes I made a similar suggestion above. Without wishing to preempt anything, I've added it with what you suggest, this version. What you think?  ——Serial  12:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry I missed your comment above/great minds think alike! The only change I'd suggest is recommending that those seeking to opt out comment out their name rather than removing it, since otherwise it's not clear (for crats elected after the template's creation) who is opting out and who was accidentally just never added. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd make a couple of trivial changes (use "comment out" rather than "edit out", link the 'crat noticeboard and add a full stop after "so", but other than that I think that looks pretty close to exactly what is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to !vote here as a non-crat, but given that editors can opt out of it, I don't see a common-sense reason for deletion if >=1 crats find it useful, and per above, they do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, as being useful at times. And it's not something that a crat needs to react to with a snotty bolded shouty order not to use it either. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep you can exclude yourself from it if you like. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ultimately up to the 'crats, but if it's used sparingly with some instructions for best use, and has an opt-out, I don't see the harm in it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep it should be up to the bureaucrats whether this is kept or not, since they are the main people affected by it. So far as I can see, 3 bureaucrats have said here that they don't mind it, and none have objected to it. As such, it seems reasonable enough to keep it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there's one objection. The person who nominated this for deletion is a bureaucrat. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I did call out at BN that there could be 'crats that like this usage. I think it's bad form, but may certainly be in the minority - thus why this is a discussion. — xaosflux  Talk 17:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, ping templates are useful. Allow current bureaucrats to opt out and leave it to future bureaucrats whether they want to join (with proper documentation in good places). In my experience, DYK admins is generally useful, and I am able to ignore it or take myself off the ping list at any time. —Kusma (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with the users above; it seems useful to have a template to ping a certain subset of users, such as DYK admins, FAC/FLC/TFA coordinators, and bureaucrats. If the issue is that users "have not asked for this functionality", then I'm not seeing why these users can't just opt out by removing their names from the template. That said, I do think it should be up to individual bureaucrats to decide whether to opt in or out. Epicgenius (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: The principle of anyone quickly being able to echo 19 people into a discussion is easily abusable and even if it weren’t, people watchlist noticeboards for a reason. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (they/them) 01:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not intending to influence your vote or anything, but wouldn't someone be able to easily ping the 19 crats just by going to Bureaucrats and copying the usernames from there? If someone is abusing the template, they can just be muted (or blocked, if they were causing further disruption), the same way as if they were abusing Template:Ping or just repeatedly pinging people in general. Epicgenius (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a 'crat so I won't give a bolded !vote, but I don't see the harm here. Easy way to notify 'crats for medium-to-low-importance things, without writing up a whole thing at BN. Of course, any crat can opt out if they so wish. Queen of Hearts (chat • stalk • they/she) 02:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Speaking as a Crat, this is used infrequently and mostly appropriately. It's pretty handy, especially when there's a Cratchat. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep while I understand where Xaosflux is coming from, I find it useful when we're alerted to a particular issue, like the trolling I dealt with here. We're not always required to respond but it is handy being notified of something that we might otherwise miss, without anyone having to tag a specific bureaucrat. Acalamari 14:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm with Xaosflux on this one. I'm not thrilled by the way the template has been used recently at Skdb's RFA to ping for RFA clerking, a task that I was not elected to do. I would rather potential crat actions be proposed on WP:BN, where they can be centralized in a place where everyone can see and discussed by the community. If kept, I would like the documentation to be expanded per Skdb.  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The community put clerking of RFAs into the hands of the 'crats in 2015. It very much goes with the job and has done for the last eight years. If you don't want to do that part, that's not a problem, but there are others that should be covering it, and given none of us mere mortals know which of you can be bothered to cover it, this is the best way to let people know. Alternatively, sort out between you who is going to clerk each RfA (much as happens at ArbCom), stick your names at the top of each RfA as being in charge, and people can do the job properly without the need for everyone to get a ping.ps. If you don't want to get pinged, you can always opt out, which makes the 'don't want to be disturbed' argument rather moot - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I was on the fence until I saw there is an opt-out feature. If the crats who don't like it can opt-out, then I don't see a benefit to deleting it and thus taking it away from the crats who like it. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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) 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)
 * 2024 Winter Youth Olympics
 * Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.