Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:08, 12 April 2007

< April 8	April 10 >

April 9

Template:Afc attack and Template:Afc nonsense

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 — Patstuart^talk·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]

Delete both. Attack and nonsense entries should be entirely removed, so there's no need for these. -Amarkov moo! 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 1ne 09:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pluto spacecraft

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]

D Yup, one could say this is perhaps crystal balling, but more to the point, the fact that there is one item for this, make is appear not needed. Navou ^banter 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history leads us to the above two templates. I don't know if the situation is any better for them, so feel free to bundle them into this nomination if there are no missions planned any time soon. –Pomte 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neptune is defensible as there are two spacecraft listed. Uranus is in the same situation as Pluto. Cop 633 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this; not enough articles to yet merit a navigiational box. I would vote to delete the Uranus and Neptune ones as well, or merge all of them into an "exploration of outer planets" sort of deal. Gracenotes^T § 17:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add to historic spacecraft, such as Voyager. Nardman1 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Voyager did not visit Pluto... Cop 633 01:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SomeTemplate

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. Patstuart^talk·edits 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete useless. –Pomte 16:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G1 (patent nonsense). So tagged. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a test page (CSD G2). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:09, 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

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]

Past TfDs: 2006 February 3 (keep), 2006 March 13 (keep)
Delete for all of the nom's reasons except point 2. The scope is not the same as {{Calm talk}} because only after trolls are fed does it turn into a heated debate. This tag looks like it seeks to prevent heated debate before it even begins, but it's a bad idea to tell editors to tone their comments down so they are less likely to be ridiculed in return. –Pomte 12:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some discussion pages that will contain trolling, not because any specific person is trolling but because the topic creates trolls. And some newcomers will react to trolling in the way which is most fun; i.e. flaming them. That's counterproductive, so there should be something explaining how to react to trolls. -Amarkov moo! 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The way to "react to trolls" is to stay calm and not take the bait. Therefore, {{Calm talk}} is probably a more appropriate template to use in these situations. It makes the same underlying point without {{TrollWarning}}'s implicit assumption of bad faith. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trolling is not heated debate, so I don't think that it really conveys the message well enough to someone new. -Amarkov moo! 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pomte. I think "troll" is a subjective term in general, and as the nominator says, this may also be a WP:BEANS violation. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in my experience it's a vital component of several talkpages.--Domitius 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? What does this template do that others can't? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Umm... you're aware WP:BEANS is an essay right Walton? I been here like two weeks and I know that. Trevor GH5 22:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously I know that, and perhaps I was misleading in talking about a "violation" of WP:BEANS, given that it isn't a policy or guideline. However, it is a good principle by which to conduct oneself on Wikipedia. In any case, this is a side point; I personally think that labelling users as "trolls" is unhealthy in general, and labelling a discussion as troll-dominated is only going to make the tone more unfriendly. An exhortation to "please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA" might be far better than this troll template. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think troll is as derogatory as you're making it out to be, and most trolls probably know they're trolls. Trevor GH5 10:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen talk pages calm down after this was added. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - eh, does anyone have any thoughts about merging this template into {{calm talk}}, or making it more like {{calm talk}}? We don't have to call a troll a troll; merely identify behavior. Gracenotes^T § 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do sometimes have to call a spade a spade so that others understand the importance of not feeding it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could imagine that this template could be used in bad faith, however, especially in "alleged not NPOV" disputes. Trolling kind of strikes me as a strong word. I would be rather interested in instances when you've seen this template work. Gracenotes^T § 23:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion page may attract trolls or disruptive editors. Please keep a cool head, assume good faith, do not feed any trolls, and do not retaliate with personal attacks. If issues persist, try dispute resolution methods. –Pomte 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Serves a purpose, the only ones that might be offended are those that are here for the purposes of disruption.--MONGO 05:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or one editor could gain an unfair disadvantange in a content dispute by calling the other one a troll and causing others to ignore the latter. Gracenotes^T § 13:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SlimVirgin and Trevor GH5. 1ne 05:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Tbeatty 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious AGF problems. Also an indiscriminate personal attack and a dare for people to start flame wars. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MONGO. MortonDevonshire Yo · 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but strongly suggest a review of the wording. I think "may attract trolls or disruptive editors" is better than "may contain trolling". The former seems more like a dispassionate observation; the latter like a subtle accusation. Xtifr _tälk 01:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks to these, if you want a fight you know where to go. — MichaelLinnear 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slapping this tag on top of a talkpage is indicative that you think somebody is trolling, and advertising it to everyone who comes to visit it. I think trolling should be handled far more silently than this. Used inappropriately (i.e. in cases where someone disagrees with someone else and accuses the person of "trolling"), this template will inflame the situation. If you see somewhat grabbing troll-bait and getting more and more exasperated, it is best to leave a calm note on the user-talk page; such comments are misplaced on the talkpage where the discussion is ongoing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It inflames the situation, but the WP:BEANS argument is very valid indeed. This template is equivalent to painting a big red target on an article. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 17:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but mark as being kept mainly out of humorous or historical interest. Nardman1 22:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Xtifr's suggested reword. Trolling is a specific problem not the same as heated debate (most debates are genuine - Trolling is deliberately disruptive) and not neccessarily a breach of AGF if disruption is evident.--Cailil 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, even though a noble idea, AGF runs up to a certain point. I know of many discussions which contain deliberate trolling. There is no need to beat around the bush, really :) It is also helpful by letting newcomers know that that particular discussion is not a "normal" one..Baristarim 07:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's one thing to have an editor that doesn't assume good faith; that can be fine, based upon circumstance. A disclaimer template is a different issue. Trolling should not be a problem with the talk page. It should be a problem only with a specific editor, and slapping it on said talk page (by calling another editor a troll) is a much more complicated, and possibly a more harmful/villifying, solution. If a particular talk page merely attracts trolling, {{calm talk}} should work. But why label discussion specifically as trolling? It's a waste of time (note wikilink). Gracenotes^T § 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Critical reading

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. — coel acan — 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike the tags which already exist, this implies that the people who dispute accuracy are correct, which is not good. There should be no implications as to who is right in the dispute. -Amarkov moo! 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: {{critical reading}} - disclaimer = {{totally-disputed}}. Gracenotes^T § 01:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; appears to be redundant to Template:Totally-disputed. Kyra_~(talk) 02:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to unnecessarily involve readers in editorial disputes. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All articles should be read critically, whether they have the tag or not, so this tag is useless. Delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to {{totally-disputed}}. Neil916 (Talk) 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 1ne 22:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 *'''Keep''' as per [[User:Xtifr|Xtifr's]] suggested reword.  Trolling is a specific problem not the same as heated debate (most debates are genuine - Trolling is ''deliberately'' disruptive) and not neccessarily a breach of AGF if disruption is evident.--[[User:Cailil|Cailil]] 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' Well, even though a noble idea, AGF runs up to a certain point. I know of many discussions which contain deliberate trolling. There is no need to beat around the bush, really :) It is also helpful by letting newcomers know that that particular discussion is not a "normal" one..[[User:Baristarim|Baristarim]] 07:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' - it's one thing to have an editor that doesn't assume good faith; that can be fine, based upon circumstance. A disclaimer template is a different issue. Trolling should not be a problem with the talk page. It should be a problem only with a specific editor, and slapping it on said talk page (by calling another editor a troll) is a much more complicated, and ''possibly'' a more harmful/villifying, solution. If a particular talk page merely attracts trolling, {{tl|calm talk}} should work. But why label discussion specifically as trolling? It's [[WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND|a waste of time]] (note wikilink). [[User:Gracenotes|<font color="#960">Grace</font><font color="#000">notes</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<font color="#960">T</font>]]</sup> § 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:Critical reading]] ====