Template talk:Unblock reviewed

Currently this template automatically assumes the answer is no, and there's a different one for "yes". While it's true that the majority of requests have this outcome, I'd like to implement an enwiki-like system. Does that seem like a good idea? Krett12 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Only (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because 1) Having 2 templates makes little sense. 2) It has a bad outlook on wikipedia that "reviewed" is a synonym for "rejected". Krett12 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. At the very least, change this one from "reviewed" to "denied" or "rejected". Irn (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is what it means, it means it was reviewed and not acted on. Two templates very much makes sense as we try to be simple in all things, two simple templates are simpler than one complex template. This is purely a change for the sake of change. If anything changing it to rejected would be more harsh. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Reviewed and not acted upon" is not the same as "reviewed". Also, there is an action: denial of the unblock (i.e. use of the template).

I'm new here, but I haven't seen anywhere that "we try to be simple in all things", rather we use simple English, which is about word choice and communication, not simplifying everything. -- Irn (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will learn that as you edit here more. We attempt to be simple in everything we do here. From our language, to our policies, to our category structure, to how we do things. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having two different templates does NOT make sense. There should be one reviewed template, and just, it knows if it's a decline or an accept. Changing it to rejected would actually be better. That way, there could be a {{rejected}} and {{accepted}} template. Putting {{unblock reviewed}} should not be the same as putting {{rejected}}. Infact, on enwiki, the {{unblocked}} template just piggybacks off of the {{unblock reviewed}} one. If you're getting ready to say "we aren't enwiki", that phrase doesn't work in this context. Also, if you want to be simple, having one template instead of three is definitely the way to go. Krett12 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told repeatedly that we aren't enwiki. And like all the other times, it works here just as well. Again what actual issue are you solving, the only people who use these templates are the admin, and they all know what the two templates do. The name of the template doesn't affect its function in any way. It is drastically simpler to have two different templates where we use one to do one thing and the other to do the other. Having to muck about changing parameters in the template to make it one or the other when we use it is more complicated and unnecessary. -DJSasso (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm....you do have a point. What do other poeple think? Krett12 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, adding "|decline=" or "|accept=" is super easy, and makes more sense than having three templates. Also, as pointed out above, the least we can do is call the template "unblock request rejected" Krett12 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[change source]

{{editprotected}} Can somewone add a new image and make some corrections to this template? -- Psl631 ^{TALK Contribs} 16:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Psl631: You have to be more specific than that. What image do you think should be used and why? What corrections do you think are needed and why? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]