Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
< April 8 April 10 >

April 9

edit

Template:Afc attack and Template:Afc nonsense

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afc attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Afc nonsense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no reason we should be using these templates. As an AFC veteran, it is my opinion that it is feeding the trolls to even bother declining their article from the page; it should just be deleted. Do we really want to say to turn down "JOE SMITH IS A TWAT", or just delete it? If a case is borderline, we still have template:afc joke — Patstuarttalk·edits 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we do keep the second one needs to be re-worded as it's very hostile. Trevor GH5 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pluto spacecraft

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pluto spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superfluous. This template lists spacecraft that are due to explore Pluto. However, there is only one such spacecraft, New Horizons, and no more are planned by any space agency. Thus the template appears on only one page and simply links back to that very page. Pointless. Cop 633 17:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neptune spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This one has 2 links instead of 1.
Template:Uranus spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:SomeTemplate

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Patstuarttalk·edits 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SomeTemplate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Test template. Unused. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:TrollWarning

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Very useful template besides. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TrollWarning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I nominated this template for deletion about a year ago. It was kept at that time, but I think (and hope) that consensus may have changed since then. I find this template problematic for several reasons:

  • First and foremost, it's a glaring violation of WP:AGF. The entire purpose of this template is to accuse users of arguing in bad faith. Unlike, say, the sockpuppet template, no evidence is expected to be provided for these assertions.
  • It seems redundant with {{Calm talk}}, which makes the same underlying point in a manner far more consistent with our traditions of civility and good faith.
  • It's a disclaimer template, which we generally recommend against.
  • In the spirit of WP:BEANS, it's possible that this template may encourage the behavior it officially warns against.

For all these reasons, it's time for this template to go. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That being said, I understand this is not a vote. I happen to share the opinion that the word "troll", esp. put into a large box on top of a page basically says "assumption of good faith is not as necessary here as on other pages". It's too easy to subjectively abuse this template to discredit different opinions, and may even be construed as a call to disregard fellow users' contributions. What this template suggests is "tread lightly, because on this page, you may get blocked quickly, better don't engage in debate here altogether". It goes against WP:CIVIL, against WP:AGF, against WP:NOT and in some cases may even contribute to a violation of WP:OWN. I agree that {{calm talk}} is a better substitute in all instances. Thus, I'm for deletion of this template. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, this concisely sums up my concerns. In the case of a keep closure, at least the inflammatory wording and esp. the image should be altered. Making the template "stand out more" is exactly what should not be done. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 04:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I want to pose an open question... to anyone who voted keep, what policy would support that position? I've seen mostly "it's useful" responses but no policy behind it. The nominator has cited several policies in direct conflict with this template but those concerns haven't been addressed at all. There are even some policies the nom hasn't mentioned which apply (for example, WP:DENY.) I think it would be best to discuss it in a policy light. I don't think usefulness is an excuse to keep something which violates several Wikipedia policies. .V. [Talk|Email] 13:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not in support of this template, as it currently reads, but I would take issue with the idea that usefulness should not be a determining factor in the face of policy. The only reason we have any policy is because it's useful, and in situations where it's actually useful to break policy, then policy says we should break it. The goal is to write an Encyclopedia, not to pass and follow legislation. Useful == Good. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Usefulness can be a determining factor, but there are situations when the policy concerns outweigh the usefulness. For example, someone might find "how-to" guides extremely useful but they contradict WP:NOT and are therefore deleted pretty much without fail. It's my belief that if something is "useful" (Note: I don't think this template is useful for anything but giving an excuse to be exempt from AGF) yet contradicted by several key policies, it should go. Either that or modify the policies to fit the template... .V. [Talk|Email] 01:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the question is, useful for what? How-to guides aren't useful for accomplishing our goal of writing an encyclopedia, which is partly defined by not being a how-to guide. If something is useful for getting the encyclopedia written, then it's good, and it can't really contradict policy. If the policies seem to contradict it, they can be reworded. In the case of this template, I allow that SlimVirgin and others have seen it work in the past, but I hold to the idea that diplomacy is still better (in the sense of more useful for writing an encyclopedia) than "calling a spade a spade". I think that's why we have the AGF policy. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with you, although I'm still rather unclear as to how this template helps. .V. [Talk|Email] 04:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's not entirely clear to me either. SlimVirgin says she's seen talk pages calm down after it was used, so I take her word for it. I can't imagine that a more diplomatically worded version would be less helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful template. - Denny (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously, SqueakBox 00:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but ditch the graphic and reword per Gracenotes and Pomte above. Possibly merge with {{calm talk}}. Maybe rename it, too. The less the template is worded so that it will come across as calling someone a "troll", the better. It's entirely possible to tell people not to feed a troll without saying, "don't feed the troll"; that's a good skill to encourage Wikipedians to develop. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The banner isn't just insulting to trolls (who seem to like this anyway), but anyone trying to influence concensus on a controversial page. It's also unnecessarily divisive among the many who strongly feel this is the wrong way to deal with the issue. It also forces an awkward and unhelpful discussion, if the issue is disputed, in which the sides have to argue about why and whether the banner is justified. WP:AGF makes much more sense, while allowing people to cite WP:Troll as they see fit. Mackan79 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Starts discussions off on the wrong foot. It's not like people can't recognize trolling when they see it. Frise 01:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Xtifr's suggested rewording. —Aucun effort n'est trop grand 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MONGO and SlimVirgin. <<-armon->> 03:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful template. --rogerd 10:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Editors with good common sense will identify trolling easily. I don't think this template is necessary at all and do violates WP:AGF. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 15:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The word "troll" should always be avoided - it will be perceived as a personal attack and inevitably escalate the dispute. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or scare a good editor away... GracenotesT § 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Calling someone a "troll" is a personal attack. Cla68 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The fact is, saying the page contains trolling actually feeds the trolls in the first place. -Wooty Woot? contribs 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Critical reading

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. 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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Critical reading (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Largely redundant to {{totally-disputed}} but also tells the reader how to react. It's hard to see how this could be used in an NPOV manner. Delete. — coelacan — 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_9&oldid=1084290462"
  NODES
Idea 4
idea 4
Note 15
Project 5
USERS 3