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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Apart from the numerical preponderance of "deletes" over "keeps", the arguments given by the "deletes" were stronger. Ignoring the "keep" that just said "idiots", the "keep" rationale is to a significant extent based on the idea that the template, while not useful at present, potentially might be useful if it were changed, but others have given cogent answers to those arguments. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPhone navmap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I simply don't see the usefulness of this template when ((IPhone)) already exists for navigation purposes. The diagrams of the phone are also extremely similar that the actual model is indistinguishable. —Chris!_c/t 23:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete – While I think the first three phones look very similar, I think the navigation map can be useful. However, the template ((iPhone)) has a "Generations" section which is – I think – more than needed. I am a little neutral but leaning against "delete". --Bryce Wilson | talk 08:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.34.45 (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and never make a comment like that again. --Bryce Wilson | talk 01:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you are new here but that was kind of rude. Giggett (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. --Bryce Wilson | talk 12:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There's already clickable text in ((iPhone)). There's absolutely no need to have a barely-legible image map accompanying said text. Is this used anywhere expect within ((iPhone))? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:IPhone_navmap.—Chris!_c/t 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately Special:WhatLinksHere isn't quite clever enough yet to distinguish direct transclusions from transclusions via another template. I was too lazy to directly compare that list with the number of ((iPhone)) transclusions, but thought someone here might have known. Anyway, thanks: that confirms the complete redundancy of the nominated template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely redundant. Serves no purpose other than visual indentification, which is rendered useless due to three of the images being the same, and the fourth barely distinguishable from the rest. --Dorsal Axe 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What's the point? I can't tell the difference between the images at all. →Στc. 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: First 3 images are identical, and makes them hard to identify by just looking at them without hovering over them to see the alt-text. We already have links to all 5 phones on the ((iphone)) templete, so this makes the images unneeded. Giggett (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The size of the images make them hard to distinguish, especially the first 3 images. Also there is no need for navigation image in Template:IPhone, navbox should be simple and aids navigation, while these images do not aid navigation at all. — MT (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT: I'm leaning more towards to KEEP at the moment now that iPhone 4S is due to be release soon and maybe the images in the template needs to be updated and enhanced further for easier visual identification purposes. Also, it is probably worth to keep this Tfd and conduct a new review in a few weeks time after the release of the iPhone 4S. No harm to either the deletionist and keepist, right? Sometimes, a little common sense should be practised more often to avoid needless squabbles, no? Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The iPhone 4S has already been confirmed to have an identical form factor to the iPhone 4. So the template would have five links, but the first three and last two would be identical to one another. Completely absurd. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per many above - a bunch of indistinguishable linked images does nothing to help in navigation, it's intended use. Nikthestoned 14:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It helps illustrate the difference between generations. I've just increased the detailing by increasing the curvature and thickness on the first three generations. It will without a doubt increase in usefulness as more generations are released. SHADOW4 (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even with the changes, the images are still extremely similar and the template still does not aid navigation, which is the primary purpose of a template like this. To illustrate the difference between models, a list does a much better job.—Chris!_c/t 02:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: but recommend putting visible numbers on each screen to differentiate. Digita (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting numbers will help readers differentiate. But then what is the point of having the images up when they themselves do not help readers differentiate? This is precisely the point.—Chris!_c/t 01:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be taken off the main nav. plate without TFD, as it may find a use someday. Digita (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this does not aid in navigation, the text links in the navbox are enough here. It is also questionable from an accessibility standpoint. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as unhelpful and confusing on my text-based browser. Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2011 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Facepalm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to our article Facepalm, this is "an expression of embarrassment, frustration, disbelief, disgust, shame or general woe. It often expresses mockery or disbelief of perceived idiocy."

This does nothing to foster civil discourse among Wikipedians. I've just looked through how it is being used, and whilst I do see the occasional use in self-deprecation, overwhelmingly it is used as a shorthand put-down (=incivility) implicitly calling your correspondent an idiot, and his latest contribution self-evidently moronic.

Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete ((jackass)) or ((moron)). If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't be giving them shortcuts to do so. If there are "good uses", it isn't so hard to type it. It is also an idiom, which in a multi-cultural encyclopedia does not aid communicaiton.

The existence of the template simply serves to legitimise dismissive discourses. The fact that people see no harm in this shows how much we've grown to tolerate ingrained incivility. There is simply no excuse for this.Scott Mac 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Link to a number of questionable diffs. →Στc. 07:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Questionable how exactly? A link to a discussion and a reference to Jerry Lee Lewis song; Facepalm for musical taste but calling it "canvassing" or "questionable" is stretching it. I see no lobbying for any particular result. And by the by, I was greatly offended by you calling my "Newbie Biting" template disruptive [1]. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Uh, no, see WP:CANVAS#Inappropriate_notification, particularly the "spamming" point. Do note that now that you are flamboyantly waving around the template in the manner you are, you're giving all the keep voters (including me) reason to change to delete. Regarding the rest, that is better suited to a talk page. →Στc. 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I said at the DRV: It may seem like this template fails on the civility front, but the concept of facepalming is well known to be a funny reaction to something stupid (we can't deny stupid things do go on, right?) and so long as the use of the facepalm template are done within the context of a pre-established consensual relationship between friends, I don't see what the problem is. Imagine: an admin I know in real life (from our monthly London pub meetups) does something stupid, and so I go to his talk page and leave a facepalm. Just like we do with ((Trout)). If people use it to bite the newbies then discipline them for doing that, but don't take fun away from established users because it might be abused. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Argument for deletion is illogical. Most often its used as intended during normal discourse between editors as an expression of embarassment at one's own screw ups. If it is used uncivilly, thats a violation of WP:CIVIL. We don't delete material on the grounds someone might use it sarcastically, I'm often tempted to send a "Surreal Barnstar" in moments of wikistress. If its the potential for use in a sarcastic manner, then are you going to delete wikilove as well? Also twice in one day, someone needs a hug. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my earlier comments, the presumption it will be used for uncivil remarks does rather fly in the face of WP:AGF does it not? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't a "presumption", it is a verifiable fact. Check for yourself.--Scott Mac 19:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That you have managed to trawl wikipedia to find a number of examples is circumstantial evidence not prima facie evidence. That someone went to so much effort to destroy a harmless template, well. Regarding the evidence you quote, what is really killing the project is the number of experienced editors leaving. Your evidence points to a problem with retaining experienced editors. Ever thought why that might be? It might have something to do with treating editors like children e.g. delete this template in case someone is rude with it. Your entire premise is based on the bad faith presumption that you can't trust editors not to run with scissors. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand a word of that. First, scissors are useful, this isn't. Second, I didn't "trawl wikipedia to find a number of examples", I just looked here and noted that the majority of uses I examined were not self-deprecating. As for m:Research:Newbie reverts and subsequent editing behavior, I've never seen the page before, so how is it "my evidence". It isn't a case of "someone might be rude with this", it is a case of many people actually are, and for the few times where people might have a legitimate desire to self-deprecate with a clichéd meme, it is actually quicker to type "f-a-c-e-p-a-l-m" than to use an oft-abused template.--Scott Mac 20:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed good faith and that you would take the comment about running with scissors in the manner it was intended, ie humorous. I guess most people got the joke. Thats another reason people are leaving, a general lack of humour and taking things too seriously. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Facepalm Between typing a humourous expression in 12 strokes (((facepalm))) or in 15 strokes (f-a-c-e-p-a-l-m) of the keyboard, I think we can see rather clearly which is the quicker one to type out, wouldn't you say so? Stop contradicting yourself, wil'ya? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good or bad faith doesn't come into it. We are both obviously acting in good faith - I can't see anyone in this discussion who isn't. Whether we are successfully communicating is a different matter entirely. I assumed your use of the scissors was an analogy intended to communicate. Lack of humour isn't the problem here, I have an excellent sense of humour (as I assume do you), the problem is that "face palming" is often used dismissively to denote the idiocy of others - as the article on face palm clearly states. That's not a misuse of the term, it is an actual use. Having a template to encourage people to use a meme which is so often connected with dismissing your correspondent as an idiot isn't helpful.--Scott Mac 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates don't bite newbies, editors bite newbies. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates just make it easier to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

((Newbie-biting)) And to misquote another cliche, The template itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with templates. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing gun control and template usage overmuch is a red herring. While people are going to be argumentative, handing them a nice cricket bat is not the way to resolve the dispute. It's hard on the discussion page and hard on the furniture. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket bats don't kill people, people kill people. Have you ever heard of the "Weapon substitution theory"? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, cricket bats have a regular use - and thus the small risk of their misuse is worth running. This template has no use, and its misuse is demonstrably widespread.--Scott Mac 21:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire I suggest you review its current usage. Running with scissors is too dangerous for Wikipedia! Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Might as well delete a template that inserts a smiley. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On the face of it I'd say "yes, kill it", but Wee Curry Monster asserts above it's usually used in good humour. Do we have a rough count of usage and context? If it is being used abusively more than not, that would be a strong argument to take it away IMO - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Facepalm Silly nomination, it's mostly harmles, and people offended by this need an exercise in skin-thickening. When you view it in context of usage, its really only a more pointed version of the famout Wikipedia in-house meme, the Troutslap. Btw, I assume you linked to Template:Jackass above believing it'd be a redlink, but you're hitting on the template for Jackass (TV series). :) Tarc (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with snowfall. Any template could be used "to legitimise dismissive discourses", it's just that this one was decided to be an acceptable target. Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be enjoyable, not a job, and self-mocking is part of the enjoyment. When we do something stupid, are we not allowed to facepalm at ourselves because somebody, somewhere, might be offended by it? And as WCM notes, assuming that a template is only good for being uncivil is assuming bad faith on the part of we, the editors. Also, the fact that other presumed templates (of a notably more disruptive nature than a mere facepalm) would be deleted is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - In reference to what the Bushyranger has said, read also → WP:Assume good faith#Accusing others of bad faith... not good... nasty cycle... bad karma. I mean, this is one of the silliest Tfd ever, besides WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (4th nomination), which was another snowball~! Facepalm... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Assume good faith" does not mean ignore people who are not acting in good faith. If you look at the uses of this template, it is often being used in incivility and being dismissive of opinions with a put down. I am not "assuming" anything - I am stating verifiable facts. My argument may be wrong, but your dismissal of it as "silly", without engaging with it, is simply evidence of the non-debating dismissiveness this encourages.--Scott Mac 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you actually read facepalm...? Tell me please, how can this template be interpreted as something sacarstic when it is your own personal opinion you're stating here? Just like somebody wanted to censor away WP:DGAF, you failed to see the humour in it~! And quite frankly, I still DGAF. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I not only read facepalm, I quoted it in my nomination as the definition (not my own personal opinion). I'm rather assuming by your remarks, you didn't read the nomination.--Scott Mac 19:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, I did read through the nomination line and what I see is you copy and pasting the text but not reading between the lines. Please don't assume too much next time, ask instead. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and beat with a cricket bat until it coughs up blood - Scott Mac has the right of this. A great many people editing Wikipeida believe they are the cleverest little fellows every to stroke a keyboard. If the opportunity presents itself to take an easily-abused template and turn it into something snarky, it is an absolute certainty that many contributors will seek to do so. There is too much assholish behavior in Wikipedia already. Int he alternative, we could opt to indef block anyone who uses it to put down someone using it. That's how you evaluate the matter: are people more or less likely to abuse the behavioral template? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to Facepalm you right now for suggesting indef blocks for snarky template usage. Is that blockable? Tarc (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is pretty clear that the project would be better off without snarky template users, so yeah, an indef block seems about right. --bainer (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you blocked someone for facepalming, it'd be interesting to see which one lasts longer; the block or your admin privs. Tarc (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the template won't stop the biting. They'll bite just as hard, they'll just use other ways to do it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, Bushranger, but it makes the jerks think longer and harder about how to be a clever jerk, and by the time they come up with something, the need to be snarky has either passed, or they have found something shiny to play with instead. I'm saying, its sort of a BEANS thing; why give people a template that can be so easily misused- Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comment I wish I could have thought of what Jack Sebastian and StephenBain said. It is not a Wikipedia quality template and (assuming there is a "use" for it) - it has been misused and will continue to be misused. What we might need is a Template for editors who constantly seek out and "bite" newcomers. Two newbies have left in two months that I know of. Maybe a snake eating a mouse?Mugginsx (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

((Newbie-biting)) - Enjoy. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly there are some people use the template to indicate self-deprecation or their own embarrassment, but there are plenty of others who use it as an attack on other editors; see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here or here for example. Some of the examples here are merely uncivil outbursts in content debates - which are bad enough, the effect in such cases to make the dispute an ad hominem one - but more troubling are the instances of newbie-bashing (such as [2], [3], [4], [5]). Read the results of the Summer of Research. Biting newbies is killing the project, and having templates like this - for users like HandThatFeeds to use - only enables that. --bainer (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Comment: If people are killing the project through biting the newbies - block the offending editors, don't delete the template they use for the biting. Or does the fact that certain articles are "absolutely certain" to be targets for puerile, juvenile vandalism sufficent reasoning to delete them? After all, if the articles weren't there, they wouldn't be vandalised! Reductio ad absurdum, perhaps, but the argument can be reductio'd to that and is, therefore, absurdium. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that snarky users don't get blocked for biting the newbies is that 1) they usually have an extensive editing record, 2) they have grown accustomed to having their nuggets of wisdom eaten whole without question, and 3) the sort of snarkyness that we as wiki editors tolerate with our thickened skin is more than enough to send new contributors to greener pastures. Most of us don't see the rudeness for what it is, thinking 'meh, i've seen and done worse'. So, we tend not to block the experienced users for being a bit bitey. Need we bring up any of the more recent Arbs and RfC's and noticeboard discussions where editors missed out on blocks and newbies were simply told to 'let it go' or 'cowboy up'? Blocking solely for snarkyness would be nice, but its a pipe dream. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but to be brutally honest that is utterly contrary to my experience. Time and again I've seen experienced editors castigated for dealings with newbies, when it was patently obvious the newbie was a troll and a disruptive menace. Experienced editors are WP:SCUM. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The greeting to new editors message used to include the words "most importantly, have fun!" That idea seems to fade with time. If you think getting rid of this is going to improve the discourse around here you just aren't paying attention. MarnetteD | Talk 17:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What next - are we going to get rid of the Trout? MarnetteD | Talk 17:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean we have to tacitly legitimise it by wrapping it up in a template. --bainer (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Facepalm is something you do to yourself when you are embarrassed (like "wow, I could have had a V8"); what does it have to do with incivility in the least? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not how it is usually being used.--Scott Mac 18:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and some people don't properly put the apostrophe after the s ... should we ban possessive pronouns?  :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "This does nothing to foster civil discourse" er actually as the nominator admits a quick check of the links shows that some are lovely examples of self deprecatory humour. Yes there is more snarkiness on the pedia than I'd like. But the solution is in my view is to go to people's talkpages and politely ask them to be less shouty, aggressive or whatever the incivil behaviour is. Deleting a template won't make people any less snarky, if anything by fostering the deletionist meme it encourages people to see deletion as a solution to problems rather than one of the main causes of the unfortunate level of snarkiness on the pedia. ϢereSpielChequers 17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If anything, WP could use more self-deprecation and humility, and a little less arrogance. I'm guessing the nom is taking the use of this incorrectly. I agree with BW and WSC above, it's more a "wow, did I screw up" usage than the "boy are you an idiot" in most cases. If there's a place where it is used to degrade another editor, then that post should be addressed ... not the template itself. just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  18:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The is no incorrect use of a term, there is only the way it is actually being used. It is actually being used to say "your comment was moronic" more often than not.--Scott Mac 18:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Peoplke are using Twinkle and other automated tools to incorrectly nominate articles for deletion. Sometimes en masse. Should we ban the use of Twinkle? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Twinkle has a positive benefit, and that benefit greatly outweighs its occassional abuse. Here there is no positive benefit whatsoever, and poor uses seem almost the norm.--Scott Mac 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the editors who are doing this being brought to task on AN/I? .. Not being sarcastic here .. I haven't been around much. — Ched :  ?  18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Civility issues stem from editors, not from templates. Any template can be mis-used - the reaction should be to discuss and fix an editors' behavior, not to delete the template. ^Avic_ennasis @ 18:42, 5 Tishrei 5772 / 18:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument would count against deleting something like ((moron)) too. No, deleting the template won't stop people being incivil, but it will stop us being seen to legitimise it.--Scott Mac 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Another example, unfortunately, of something being proposed for deletion because some people misuse it. I have to fully agree with Tom Morris here. Yes, BITEy people are bad for the project but those people will BITE newbies, no matter if this template is deleted or not. Most likely they'll do it in even more harmful ways if they use their own words. Like Ched says, if someone misuses it, ((trout)) them for it, not the template. If I screw up and want to Facepalm myself to show it, I should be allowed to do it and if user "NewbieBITER" wants to use it to insult newbies, the user should be disciplined for it. It's like suggesting to ban all cars because some of them are used to run people over deliberately... Regards SoWhy 18:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that the template is used for its intended purpose more than by "biters" and other contentous editors. I checked the edits mentioned above and from my own observations as well I also think it is used negatively more often. Administrators are busy enough without giving them another thing to monitor. Mugginsx (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you really must denote your own screwup with a over-used clichéd meme rather than using actual English, can't you simply type f-a-c-e-p-a-l-m (it is actually shorter to type it than to use the template)? --Scott Mac 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No can do, too much strokes of the keyboard. 12 strokes = (((facepalm))), or 15 strokes = (f-a-c-e-p-a-l-m), be my guest and do the math. Thinks this should be a no brainer. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the image with it is important for that purpose and it would be annoying to have to add both the image and type the word every time. Templates are after all meant to save typing and time. Your argument also seems to assume that people abusing the template cannot type f-a-c-e-p-a-l-m which is nonsense. Removing the template will not stop those people BITEing newbies - quite the contrary, they are much more likely to use more offensive language instead. As for Mugginsx comment: The amount of people misusing the template is irrelevant. Important is that the propoer way to handle it is to ((trout)) those people, not delete the template. Regards SoWhy 17:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Troll and uncivil templateCurb Chain (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Address the odd abuser, not the abused tool. DVdm (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the "abuse" isn't "odd" it appears the normal use - and this isn't a tool.--Scott Mac 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then address the normal abuser. As a template, I think it can be used as a tool to express a feeling, and I think that I once abused it, for which I herewith wish to apologise. DVdm (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Note that our friends on the Russian WP use this quite a bit (((Ужас))) My Russian is non-existent, but apparently this word translates to "horror". Doc talk 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To paraphrase an old expression: Templates don't bite newbies, uncivil experienced editors do. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I concur with the opinions of Tommorris, Ched, and WSC. Templates can be misused. It comes down to the user of it. The nominator is looking into this template too deeply, most of the time it's used when someone says something silly or dumb, and is a bit of a "lol" so to speak. It's a bit like ((Trout)). I'm sure people have misused that too, but we aren't going to delete that, are we? And don't bother with that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS link, I know full well what it means so there's no point linking it to me. In this situation, it's a valid argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Zhang (talk • contribs)
• Keep and use. The problem is that some users don't understand the word "facepalm" - I remember a recent upset where someone thought it meant "talk to the hand" and blew up at the user. With the associated image, it makes things clearer. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops That was me ([6]). Bad Black Kite. Oh, Keep, btw, because I doubt if the little image would have stopped Keifer (who isn't by any means a newbie) misunderstanding me, and the phrase itself seemed ideal for the rather surreal situation - it certainly wasn't being used as a put down. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. Plenty of proper usage; improper usage doesn't mean "delete this template," it means "use this template correctly!" --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a light hearted way of saying something which (a) sometimes needs to be said, and (b) might seem more unfriendly expressed in words, rather than in this way. I have never used it, and probably never will, but that's just a matter of personal preference. That an administrator deleted this without any consultation at all was appalling. There is no way that any of the criteria for speedy deletion can be considered to apply. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Who cares? We've long known that jerks will find ways to be jerks, whether with templates or without. Will this template be abused? Inevitably. Will removing this template reduce the abuse? unlikely, even at the margins. There are many nearly perfectly substitute goods for this template, including the classic *facepalm*.--Tznkai (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete No smilies please. - Nabla (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful in either building an encyclopedia or productive discourse. If people strongly feel "facepalm" about something, they still can (but probably shouldn't) type it out.  Sandstein  22:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have never seen a complaint about this template - a light hearted way of saying something which (a) sometimes needs to be said, and (b) might seem more unfriendly expressed in words, as per J Watson. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep It should be the editors misuse it who should be admonished for misuse of this template, not the template itself, which has many other uses as stated above →Στc. 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This nomination is ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For all the reasons the "keep" votes have stated. I can't think of anything original. (Facepalm) --Ebyabe (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Facepalm Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per above. Baseball Watcher 00:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. when well used, it is a positive feature of the community culture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The day we start suppressing simple, commonplace gestures because they might be used in an uncivil way is the day we've taken WP:CIVIL way too far. As an aside, though, facepalming is not remotely considered rude or uncivil in real life or on the internet; no more than light sarcasm, at least. It's actually somewhat on par with WP:TROUT in that there's absolutely no reason you should take it too seriously or get worked up over it. Swarm 01:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- the template is fine. Much like any tool, misuse is the fault of the user, not the template. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Irrespective of whether it may be used as a light-hearted, "consensual" thing between friends (as one person above said), the point is sadly that it isn't. To enshrine violations of WP:CIVIL into template tools strikes me as the height of stupidity; if this is to be kept why not, after all, have templates for various other derogatory comments? That it is there as a template implies that its use is acceptable and I really think this is a rather fundamental point. It's also the kind of dismissive sentiment that belongs much more on teenage-orientated forums than it does in the "collegial" aspect we should be fostering here at Wikipedia. Facepalm --Tristessa (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You yourself have just demonstrated the stupidity to which Wikipedia has descended, no height involved at all. Shall we ban all words because some may misunderstand or take objection to them? Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Like for example this misuse of this template. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a social networking site. This template already violates WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:EQ, WP:NPA, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and some of the civility essays. Enough enough enough. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting this template doesn't really make any inroads into incivility. It's not particularly uncivil anyway; I take issue with the rather silly notion that calling people's comments out as idiotic is problematic. Instead I argue it is a necessary part of cutting through the tremendous bull shit we sometimes get here. The main uses I see this template put to is in cases where a previous comment/discussion is silly or pointless. To say "guys, straighten up" etc. It is a subtle distinction, but that is a big step away from calling an editor an idiot (an act that isn't helpful, sure). Ok, so I have seen it sometimes used to mean "you're an idiot" - but that is not a template problem, it's a problem with the editor using the template in that way. Removing the template does not fix that problem... --Errant ^(chat!) 09:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It may be an urban legend popularized by a film, but supposedly the Greek military junta of 1967–1974 banned the use of the letter "Z" as graffiti. The current proposal has as much merit, and has the same prospects of success. Editors thus inclined will be uncivil and bitey using primarily letters and the occasional, pointy comma. The existence of this template doesn't create or promote these unpleasant habits. Favonian (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yet another in a recent line of events demonstrating that the community still has far too high a tolerance for smartassery. This should be a no-brainer delete as per Jack Sebastian above. it's not a case of "banning words"; it's a case of not implicitly encouraging push-button incivility and 4chan-level discourse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I read all the comments above, followed any difs provided and I have to say I don't see any harm in this. Editor being uncivil will always be uncivil, so we can't go around removing things in case an editor wants "a shortcut" to incivility. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I took a few hours last night to really go through the diffs provided by Stephen Bain in his comment. What I saw, overwhelmingly, was experienced editors using this template to express frustration with tendentious comments, usually aimed at non-newbies, and usually following a fairly lengthy discussion with the other editor(s) that also included posts on other pages. What twigged me in was one of the examples where I knew the back story: a serial multi-project sockpuppeter developing articles according to his own version of history (which just coincidentally had the potential to financially benefit the person), and which had been the subject of very extensive discussion over multiple pages for an extended time. Many of the examples are coming at the end of multiple attempts to help an editor (new or otherwise) to understand our standards and policies. There are definitely some examples where the template is one aspect of an excessively defensive or deriding response, but even in the examples given, they are in the minority. The post with the template in it has a tendency to "draw a line" under an unproductive discussion. I would like to see what Stephen Bain would suggest as a more effective method of terminating such discussions in a way that makes it clear the behaviour of the other party is not within policy, without being flat-out insulting or using the generic templated "warnings"; modeling the behaviour he expects would be helpful here. Risker (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the point has been made multiple times that nobody is preventing editors from using contemporary phrases to express themselves. However, having templates which facilitate this simply encourages editors to post cookie-cutter incivilities at one another in the same manner that message boards which have "smiley panels" built into the editing interface inevitably encourage their members to spam their posts with emoticons. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thumperward, that might be a relevant point if we as a community weren't using templated messages as a standard method of communication; I'd lay odds there are more twinkle and huggle templated messages posted in a single day than there are examples of serious misuse of this template in a year. Risker (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The potential for other things to be abused does not excuse the potential for this to be abused, and we delete unconstructive warning templates all the time anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm contending that a lot of the examples supposedly showing "abuse" of this template are actually fairly mild signs of frustration after extended communication with users who are, let's be polite, not getting with the program. On the other hand, I routinely see reverts and template warnings for edits by new and unregistered users when the edits are, in fact, acceptable (if not entirely perfect). I'm not seeing anyone campaigning to have Twinkle removed from user preferences, even though it is used for inappropriate templating on an hourly basis. Perhaps you could look at Stephen Bain's examples above and describe what you think the appropriate response would have been in each of those situations without the use of templates at all, once you've gone through them; and some examples of how to better address frustration with problem users after having tried to correct their out-of-policy behaviour would also be useful. Let's not blame the template for the situations in which it's being used. Risker (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about just requesting that the editor review (the appropriate guideline). Except for humor, I cannot see how most templates do anything to help an editor. Mugginsx (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See now, that's my point. Many times when this template is being used, the message you're suggesting has already been given in previous messages, sometimes even repeatedly. This is a major source of frustration to more experienced users, who *have* tried to explain policy/guideline and have been met with someone who is unable or unwilling to follow them. At what point does one stop having those discussions? "Until they get it" isn't working; it took a very concerted effort and plenty of personal attacks (and threats of blocking to the editors who were trying to deal appropriately with the situation) before we got rid of the multi-project sockpuppeter, for example, and now it is being raised as an example of incivility, out of context of the actual situation. Risker (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear here, are you arguing that a snarky templated response to the referenced recalcitrant sockpuppeteer actually helped the project somehow? Because it's been a while since I saw an argument won on here by the wittiest put-down. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the use of the facepalm template as more of a surrender to the notion that the argument is unwinnable, not as a witty put-down. Often as not, the editor using the facepalm template will not comment further on the matter, even if his position is the one supported by our policies and guidelines. Certainly in the examples given, it is used more commonly for the former than the latter. Risker (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Facepalm Please, please, please stop this. Sw2nd (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has good uses and bad uses. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Bad uses can be dealt with as and when they arise. LondonStatto (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep heaven forbid people use any emotion or humor when responding. If someone responds in a bad way, deal with the user, not banning a word/expression. Buffs (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is it WP:SNOWing yet? jcgoble3 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification here for an early close. There is a useful debate, even if most of the keep voters are not actually entering into it, and using illogical arguments like "banning".--Scott Mac 09:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've almost certainly seen all the arguments we will - on the keep side, that it has good uses and bad uses; and on the delete side, that it has bad uses. LondonStatto (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was and remains clear justification for an early close. Really for a harmless template like this do we need more drama? Is it acceptable by the way for you to reopen a case you started after it was closed by another admin? Smacks of WP:WHEEL to me, especially as you are clearly WP:INVOLVED. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification for an early close. There is no drama associated with a debate - there is more drama associated with terminating that debate early, before the policy mandated time frame, with no cause to do so. (Btw, wheel-warring is about admin actions, none of which were involved here - so that's wrong). What's the fear/downside in leaving this open for the mandated time, and allowing those who wish to keep exploring the issues here?--Scott Mac 11:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion, that as the opener of the deletion request, it was inappropriate of you to undo another admins close and reopen the case. Clearly you are WP:INVOLVED and I note you did not notify the closer with a courtesy note. I was rather disappointed with your response and have brought it up with a Bureaucrat here [7]. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTF Just shut this down!!! Sw2nd (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I generally respect your opinions and your admin work...and coming from an incorrigible prick like me, I don't give compliments often...but reopening this was kindof a jack move. I really don't wanna see you flame out, or worse get de-sysopped, over a silly thing like this. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Scott, normally, if a non-admin reverts an admin's closure of a deletion discussion, it would be widely frowned upon. If that person was the nominator in the deletion discussion, I can only imagine it would be considered disruptive. Now, you're a respected user, but I just can't fathom how reverting the closure of a deletion discussion you started is anything but completely inappropriate. Swarm 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have notified the closer. jcgoble3 (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, Not necessary or useful in building the encyclopedia; used too often to attack or disparage others; if people want to say "Oh, my bad!" they can do that without a template. Use of this is contributing to a hostile editing environment. In case no one has noticed, we're not exactly attracting the cream of the crop lately. And a note to the admin who SNOW closed in just a day: a bit hasty for a Tfd with quite a few well-thought-out opposing views, don'tcha think? Let it run a bit. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That we're not attracting the cream of the crop is not down to this template is it? Really that is a weak argument to make. A hostile editing environment is also not down to this or any other template, its down to editors. And I would disagree about your comments on the admin who closed it, the admin re-opening his own TfD is more of a problem in my mind. Really I wouldn't do it to be pointy but if I desired I could be really snarky with wikilove, in which case would you be arguing to ban that? There are many reasons we're not retaining editors but thats a problem that won't be tackled with a hand wringing moral panic about a template. And one of the reasons we're not retaining editors is treating them like children, telling editors you can't have this template in case you're mean to someone. Running with scissors is too dangerous for Wikipedia! Wee Curry Monster talk 19:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That rant has so many straw men I don't know where to begin. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You could start by reigning in your mouth, which you seem to have lost control of. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What rant? I think you prove my point - ie you don't need a template to be uncivil, presume bad faith or generally violate all the rules you were preaching about. No wonder editors are leaving in droves. Templates aren't uncivil, editors are uncivil. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, was "hand wringing moral panic about a template" not intended to be insulting trolling? My error. It certainly reads as though you were trying very hard to insult me. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No and rather obviously others don't think so either. And that has to be one of the most obvious non-apologies I've ever seen. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be because I didn't apologize. I have no idea why you though I was trying to. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I dunno. Perhaps prefacing your reply with "I'm sorry" and my foolish and naive presumption of good faith on your part. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, then I must have apologized. That must be why you thought that was what I was doing, *because it was*. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to be creating a hostile editing environment. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, just trying unsuccessfully to communicate with someone who for one reason or another is misunderstanding virtually everything I say. Its like trying to swim in molasses. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I can't say this was a pleasant or an interesting exchange but I thank you nontheless for conclusively proving my point. That a hostile editing environment exists is not down to templates but rather editors. I bid you adieu. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Facepalms don't hurt feelings. People do! causa sui (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  I figure this means, "talk to the hand, cuz I'm not listening", which even if intended would be better expressed with words.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No...that's...not at all what it means. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#Font size in AfD close.2Frelist boxes for how it works - it's basically the Facepalming person going "D'oh!" at themself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point, which is that people using this "facepalm" should not assume that everyone will know the "official" meaning, and that some of the people seeing the facepalm will figure that it means, "talk to the hand, cuz I'm not listening".  This is an old rule on the internet: even the most common emoticon, the smiley-face, is not universally recognized, and if you are talking to strangers, it is wise to consider typing seven characters, "<smile>", instead of 3, ":-)", or 2, ":)".  Unscintillating (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You omit the obvious fact that this template does spell "facepalm" in full next to the emoticon, and that it even contains a link to the appropriate article. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You could, of course, always have read this article on the phrase at ... Wikipedia :) Black Kite (t) (c) 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the template actually prints the word "Facepalm", why don't we add a link to that article to make it easier for people to read the article on the term? - BilCat (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this template is arguably overused, but essentially harmless. I really can't see how its use could be a civility violation - at worst, it's a snarky and dismissive reply, but it's not actually offensive or attacking the recipient. Meanwhile, in other circumstances it can add a little levity to a tired or stressful debate, which can hardly be a bad thing. Robofish (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a complete aside, it its small form Facepalm it's hard to tell if it's a face or an ear! . Methinks it's time to say bye bye to this discussion. Mugginsx (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is nothing inherently wrong with the template. It can be used completely innocuously. The fact that it can be used inappropriately isn't sufficient reason to delete or we'd have to delete almost all templates used in interactions between editors. Peacock (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was coming here ready to vote delete if a case was made that this template can only be used in an incivil manner. But it has been clearly demonstrated that it can be used in a non-problematic manner. I generally do not want to delete something that has legitimate uses just because it can be used for ill. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please no more "civility enforcement" via methods such as this. The only comparable proposal is adding "this passage is poorly written" to WP:NPA—an addition that someone did propose recently. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the many other editors above (in particular SoWhy and Swarm) who have done a great job explaining why this is a harmless way to express exasperation and/or embarrassment. 28bytes (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Anything can be used for uncivil purposes really. I just used this to express disbelief at my own stupidity in not assuming something beforehand (see my talk). Nothing other than a facepalm works better for expressing one's own disbelief at their own failure. Also, snowball keep anyone? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Tishrei 5772 20:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have way more problems with doughty editwarriors slapping 3RR templates on each other. To which the only posible response has to be Facepalm Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If editors use this in an uncivil matter, they can be dealt with on an individual basis. The template shouldn't be deleted because it could be used in a poor manner. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep' just because it can be misused does not mean we need to throw it out. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after 8 days of Tfd[edit]

• Just curious as to how long this shenanigans going last until? Nominated on 3 October and today's already the 11 October, from the numbers of KEEP "vote", I think the consensus is very clear for all to see and its an obvious WP:SNOWBALL. Patrolling admin please close this Tfd that's achieving nothing, dragging around with nowhere in sight and going nowhere, we have better things to do than to see something hang around like this. Thoughts, anyone? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been left as a snow close. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were (give or take, I might have missed one) 41 keep and 10 delete votes/opinions. What is the problem to give people time to express their opinion? Why should opposing minority views be crushed? 80% keeps is a clear keep decision, but 20% (10 editors) delete votes are opinions deserving to be respected and given a chance. I agree that vote counting is a good criterion, there is no point in never ending discussions. But prematurely stopping civilized discussion, and smothering reasonable opposing arguments, simply because the voting outcome is clear is unproductive, and leading to a dictatorship of the majority. - Nabla (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, this is the second time (or is it the third time?) this template has been nominated on a whim just because a minority feels that it is "incivil" and "offensive", the reason letting this discussion to drag its feet around and sticking out like a sore thumb is literally flying in the face of Wikipedia. Honestly, I'm not sure you calling it Tyranny of the majority (AKA dictatorship of the majority) is helping the situation any... no offence I mean, take a good look around here (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 3) and see for yourself! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nabla, you fundamentally misunderstand what it means for something to be closed early. It is not a disrespect to the minority, it is simply an acknowledgement that there is no possible way that the discussion will wind up in their favor, so it is better off to just close up what is already a foregone conclusion. We're not a bureaucracy. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2011 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete per prior discussion and WP:CSD#G3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:20111 sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of one of Eu-151's various MADEUP group tables for a tournament which hasn't happened yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:48, 3 October 2011 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shaan Muzigle profile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Generic name and unlikely to be used much at all anyway even if it had better name. More likely just linkspam by uploader. DMacks (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomCurb Chain (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. →Στc. 01:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator --Bryce Wilson | talk 01:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template was probably created due to a misunderstanding of the distinction between external links and templates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2011 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Songs performed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Generic name and unlikely to be used much at all anyway even if it had better name. More likely just linkspam by uploader. DMacks (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomCurb Chain (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are better ways to put external links in articles. Perhaps subst: this template where used before deletion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Philosopher. --Bryce Wilson | talk 08:20, 4 October 2011 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete after replacement with ((infobox station)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bucharest metro stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, only a few transclusions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Only a few? That means the template is used in 45 metro station articles in the Bucharest Metro system. What is your suggestion? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to echo the unanswered question from the template's talk page: Why is there a special template for the Bucharest Metro system when ((Infobox station)) exists? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not? No reason not to use it if it works for the article(s). Buffs (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is used and there seems to be no consensus against its usage. Buffs (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some of you seem unaware of the situation here. This template has already been made into a wrapper that converts the previous parameters to those in Template:Infobox station, leaving this template deprecated. If you look carefully you will see that the parameters shown in the documentation are for the standard infobox, not the custom one, and any new entries would use that. This is supposed to be a discussion, but we have had no response here as to what the nominator actually proposes. Substitution only goes so far and a lot of manual cleanup would still be required. You probably also don't know that there are many more custom Station infoboxes that provide very little more - usually just built in flashy icons and flags. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, deprecated. Move towards standardized infoboxes. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Yes, I see that this is a frontend to ((infobox station)), but it is of very low value. It just hands parameters over to the main station template, with very little added special regional stuff. We can safely just substitute and delete this one. Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2011 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simmons Family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four members, one of which doesn't have an article. And why is Kiss linked in this...? Each of these individuals is going to be easily linked between each other article, so navigating them is not really an issue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Come to think of it, the template really isn't necessary. The links are closely related anyways, and it's not like the family consists of 20 members or some number like that. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete contrary to (possibly) popular opinion, they have no relationship between each other (of course, this is not counting the fact that they are biologically and familially related)Curb Chain (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Curb Chain. --Bryce Wilson | talk 01:58, 5 October 2011 (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.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 MLB Playoffs by series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, made without any consultation with WP:BASEBALL, is redundant to ((2011 MLB Playoffs navbox)), and otherwise contains info not appropriate for template space. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Due to redundancy, but I am afraid of the precedent that navboxes shouldn't be created without consultation with relevant WikiProjects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Presents information more suited for articles than a navigation box. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A redundant template – per nom. --Bryce Wilson | talk 01:59, 5 October 2011 (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.