< April 8	April 10 >

April 9

Template:Afc attack and Template:Afc nonsense

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete' feeding the trolls... --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be fine with me to just delete these templates and change the AFC process to say that we're just going to delete attack and nonsense entries. There's no sense in cluttering up the page, and somehow I doubt that the trolls are going to come back and check to see if their attack and nonsense articles are created. But if they do, maybe another template would be appropriate. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:57, 13 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

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

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]
Delete:better served with proper links and prose in the articles themselves. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Gracenotes Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added cancelled missions to the template. 132.205.44.134 23:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is more acceptable, although the three spacecraft you added turned out to be just three different names for the Pluto-Kuiper Express; you might want to conflate them.Cop 633 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - We simply do not need navigation templates just to list one or two past or future space mission. Dr. Submillimeter 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SomeTemplate

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]

Template:TrollWarning

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

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]

Calm down because everyone was thereafter assuming good faith, or rather because no one was left to dissent? —AldeBaer 04:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down because everyone felt thoroughly intimidated? SqueakBox 05:08, 15 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]
- I think that's a great improvement over the current wording. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds so much better! Additionally, I strongly favour ditching the current image. —AldeBaer 19:23, 15 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]

I suspect the person most likely to be offended is the good faith contributor who's being dismissed as a troll by someone else. That sort of thing offends people, when they're trying their best to contribute and someone calls their motives into question. MONGO, you and I might both be in a position to appreciate that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:21, 14 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]
Delete, used too much by antisocial POV-pushers to label their opponents as monstrous ugly creatures instead of hearing them out and working out disagreements. The "calm talk" template works better for anyone who is not seeking conflict. Milto LOL pia 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ((calm talk)) is a better, nicer and therefore more suited template --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I think this is to the point.--Beguiled 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Milto LOL pia. —AldeBaer ~~user:Kncyu38~~ 03:22, 13 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]
- Hey... did you happen to read the comment above yours? Gracenotes^T § 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - >.> .V. _[_Talk|Email]
    - Incidentally, Denny, you yourself are providing a perfect example for complete misuse of that template here. —AldeBaer ~~user:Kncyu38~~ 15:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can only wonder how many of the other people who claimed that the template "works" used it in that manner. Gracenotes ^T § 20:19, 14 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]
- I guess if my "!vote" is for "keep, but redesign, rewrite and rename", then it's really a "delete" !vote, isn't it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:35, 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... Gracenotes ^T § 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. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Critical reading

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

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]
Delete per the above comments --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. <<-armon->> 04:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]