Template talk:Unsuitable for Wikipedia

If someone wants to change this template they should at least be using it and understand it's purpose. When a new editor sees the NSFW text in the edit window they should easily be able to link it to what they see on the view screen. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see last comment [1] Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NSFW templated drafts should be deleted if there is no objection

I propose that this template function as DraftProd. If pasted, without further comment, it results in deletion of the draft. Ideally, I wanted two qualified NPReviewers to agree before deletion, but how about letting it run with the tagger and admin the only requirements. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: would you think a 7-day delay similar to mainspace PROD, with the same restriction that anyone (including the draft creator) can contest it and once contested it should not be re-added? VQuakr (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable process; I'd support it to fill the niche for deletion of drafts that don't meet speedy criteria, are best not left 6 months for G13, and aren't contentious enough (ie, are too hopeless) to merit a trip to MfD. VQuakr (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. The GCSD (especially G13) are more than enough. I believe draft PROD has been proposed at the very least once and firmly rejected. MfD or bust; more community input, not less, is preferential. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Template:UFW per consensus formed below. Good argument for making it less "bitey"; however, that or its usage as a DraftPROD are discussions for later times and/or other venues. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 17:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NSFW → Template:DNSW – This has been bothering me for several days now. There is a serious problem with using an existing well known internet shorthand for a template with a completely different meaning. "NSFW" means Not safe for work and is universally used to refer to material which would considered graphic content or adult rated. The corresponding shortcut WP:NSFW is a shorthand for Wikipedia:Pornography for this reason. This usage is well established enough to be a dictionary definition.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} This template is for tagging unsuitable drafts and not for tagging obscene content so I propose that this template is renamed to a less confusing shorthand. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most shorthand options are already in use so I propose "DNSW" short for Draft Not Suitable for Wikipedia ('for' not capitalised). Please note that the corresponding shortcut WP:DNSW is also available for use with this template or a policy guideline associated with it. To allow for misspellings by full capitalisation, Template:DNSFW and WP:DNSFW are also available. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or "unsuitable" could be used. Template:UFW is a redlink. Support in theory as confusing. Dekimasuよ! 18:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good option. WP:UFW and Template:UFW, as Unsuitable For Wikipedia. It has the advantage of being shorter. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:UFW since it is shorter and there is less possibility form confusion. personally Not Safe for Work was the first thing I thought of when I initially saw this discussion.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Template:UFW. NSFW has implications that this template doesn't have. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This template populates Category:Assessed Not Suitable. Template:Bitey box and Template:JUNK redirect to here. This template reminds me of WP:!HERE, a shortcut I'm not keen on. I'm wondering whether this template itself is suitable for Wikipedia. wbm1058 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Template:UFW. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problem

This template should automatically subst on talk pages. Every time a reviewer leaves an AfC comment it is added to the corresponding article creators talk page, and every time this template is changed that inadvertently refactors talk pages where this template is transcluded. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Frayæ: not sure why you think this is a problem. Maybe it's better that the message changes, for example since this template is transcluded, all instances have been changed from "Not Suitable For Wikipedia" to "Unsuitable For Wikipedia". If not a good thing, at least it is neutral. Also, I didn't find where this template is automatically placed on talk pages by the {{Afc decline}} template that reviewers use. It appears to be added manually by reviewers. If you think it would be better for editors to substitute this template, then a discussion at Template talk:Afc decline might help with that. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 23:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Frayæ: looking more deeply, I found that only one reviewer consistently used {{NSFW}} on user talk pages. I have informed that reviewer of the template name change, so hopefully they will switch over to the new name. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 16:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. After changing so many usages of the previous name to the new name I thought it best being considered. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no longer any transclusions of NSFW. I have edited the template to display an error if used in the future. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example:

This page uses a deprecated template! Please change {{NSFW}} to {{UFW}}.

This now blocked sockpuppet extended the life of all the junk pages the template was attached too. What an idiot. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed the change that give the user the idea they can fix pages this is attached too. Evidently there is a misunderstanding about the purpose of this template, which is to shut down the submission of unsuitable topics. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]