Template talk:TrollWarning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Purpose of template

So the purpose of this template is to discourage people from editing Talk:Internet troll, Talk:Slashdot subculture, Talk:Sollog and User talk:Sollogfan? I don't get it. People shouldn't edit those talk pages because some trolls might make fun of them? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

At least Talk:Sollog has attracted a fair share of trolls. Not everything on that page needs to be taken seriously or deserves a response. --MarkSweep 16:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
No, the puprose of this template is not to discourage people from editing pages with troll-food potential. The original use of the template was to warn people not to take shit seriously and think before responding to a flame; It's a heads-up, really: Careful what you read in here, because it might be troll bait. That's the original reason i used day-glo yellow for the background in the first place. Project2501a 17:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Aha, I see. Previously I'd never really understood it; I'd merely rewritten parts of it that I understood and that seemed to benefit from rewriting. I've now "been bold"; I hope you like the results. -- Hoary 02:34, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Hoary's version is much clearer. →Raul654 02:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
yes, it is. Though, I have to say, I do not recognise my baby any more :) Project2501a 07:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I have changed "troll food" to "troll talk" because that seems to be closer to the intention of this template. If I am not mistaken, "troll food" is what the trolled say, not the trolls. Or am I getting it completely wrong? Kosebamse 16:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
no, sorry, you got it wrong. troll food is the std terminology :) Project2501a 00:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But is it correct? The saying goes "don't feed the troll", so it's food for the troll, so the troll is fed by the trolled. So if I want to indicate a troll's activity, it would not be logical to speak about troll food, because that's the result of theactivity of others. Therefore the template in its current form seems to indicate the activity of the trolled, not the troll. Is that the intention? Kosebamse 04:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, although I like the idea of this template (and there are probably more Wikipedia articles Talk pages that it should be put on), I think that the wording should be tightened, and it should end (preferably in bold capital letters) with Wikipedia:Don't feed the troll—an article that needs to be written that explains how to recognize a troll, and how to respond to a troll (mostly by cyber-shunning the troll—if you don't respond to their outrageousness, it looses all its effectiveness). BlankVerse ∅ 05:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. I've created a redirect to Wikipedia:What is a troll#Not feeding the trolls. --MarkSweep 05:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Mark. :) Project2501a 08:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This template is starting to get a bit wordy again. Project2501a, I'm sure you mean well, but the most recent changes don't strike me as improvements. -- Hoary 13:49, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Why not? i added 8 words and 2-3 commas. I wanted to make things more explicit. Still open to editing ideas, of course. imho, it is consise: it spells out that "SOME MORON POSTED HERE, HE'S TRYING TO MAKE YOU ACT STUPID." What's more consise than that? Project2501a 13:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I shortened the wording and made the link to 'Not feeding the trolls' that BlankVerse asked for. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 3. -Splashtalk 23:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ending period

I'm not sure what was up with that period at the end, but it is now a normal period. If I messed anything up, please change it back. — SheeEttin {T/C} 20:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Considerations

JA: Please reconsider this template. It's the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look just plain silly in the eyes of the world. I am not interested in debating the issue, but I hope that some reflection will bring you to voluntarily withdraw it. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This request does not make sense. I don't think one person can delete it unilaterally without a TfD debate (which you are not interested in debating.) When you say delete it, are you saying there is a better warning to use in its place, or that any such warnings are 'silly'? It has survived recent deletion nominations. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I think that 3 links is too many, and a link to Internet troll#Usage is not needed alongside Wikipedia:What is a troll. I deleted the first. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

TheM62Manchester: you reverted my edit. Please explain why you think the two links are not redundant. One is a link we want people to follow, the other is just background information. (Once you get to the Wikiedia space article, you can link to the other one if you are interested in reading deeper.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And if you must respond, a temperate response is always best, regardless of whether trolling is suspected or not.

I have trouble telling the difference between trolling and passionate folks just too inarticulate or too emotionally involved to make their point. So I’m inclined to respond until they’ve gone on for many iterations. Hence I added, “And if you must respond, a temperate response is always best, regardless of whether trolling is suspected or not.” As always, any Wiki editor on any day can over ride me. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 07:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/o/Template_talk%7ETrollWarning_76a5.html"