Template talk:Db-disparage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template survived a vote for deletion. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

• Please note that this did not survive a vote for deletion. It was closed early as a WP:POINT violation which it is clearly not.--God Ω War 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Delete this template? 2 red link at here 3 Jimbo's instructions 4 Aha, so there's where the divisive was coming from 5 Revote?

[edit] Delete this template?

This template is factually incorrect, and should be speedy deleted. --Dschor 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

... I have nothing productive to say here. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

this template seems to be being used out of process to circumvent discussion and consensus on templates that should be going through TfD. Please don't use this template to Game the System Mike McGregor (Can) 23:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I do agree. Shame that when this template was nominated, it was closed as WP:POINT. What point? What disruption of Wikipedia? Common sense (and an examination of the deletion log) dictates that this CSD is far more disruptive than nominating this template for deletion. This criterion is bullshit, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word. It has already been abused by editors and admins alike to avoid having to go through that bothersome procedure of gathering consensus. The fact that such a criterion was created without consensus is quite appropriate. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

---

• So what is the position? Can this template be used to speedy delete templates which have survived TfD? See Template:User_against_Saud history for an example. --Henrygb 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See WT:CSD. The CSD T1 criterion was explicitly endorsed by Jimbo. The failed attempt to get it deleted was dismissed as a WP:POINT disruption (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 6). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

    So who judges what is divisive? My opinion (I don't care about the anti-Saud template) is that something already discussed for deletion should not just be speedy deleted. --Henrygb 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    • That's the problem. It's an entirely subjective criterion. Deletionists have decided that any oppositional viewpoints are divisive and endorsing viewpoints are not - I disagree strongly. First, nearly any template can be considered divisive by at least one editor. If you want to apply the criterion to any divisive template, you will have to empty the template namespace. Might as well nuke the ability to transclude while you are at it. I believe that the criterion was established to deal with such inane garbage as {{user pedophile}} and prevent similar wheel wars from happening in the future. The criterion should not be used casually, but carefully and in cases where the divisiveness of a template is clear and the value of the template continuing to exist is nul. {{user anti UN}} is not clearly divisive, and the template does have some degree of value. If I were to create {{user adores Hitler}}, that would be divisive, and there would be no value whatsoever in it. Of course, this is solely my interpretation, and the deletionists such as Marksweep and Tony Sidaway don't agree - they want to win Kelly Martin's battle for her, and see this as a wonderful tool to do so. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 19:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This template is causing huge divisiveness among wikipedians. I propose that we mark it for speedy deletion as polemic and inflammatory. Reveilled 23:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This template should not be used to avoid TfD. It is fitting it should be tagged with itself and then deleted, remembered only in W:BJAODN, where it's place rightfully is.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] red link at here

I am concerned that the archive of the deletion discussion is a redlink. Could somebody please restore it? aa v ^ 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's red because the discussion hasn't been moved off of TfD-proper yet (and likely won't be until March 1?). If someone knows more about how archival works, we should fix the link later to point at the eventual target [1], but for now I've sent it to the closed discussion. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's instructions

This template is being abused and is not being debated. In the light of the quote which follows, I have put a date on it. --Henrygb 23:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill about this. Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a community. That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist. A thoughtful process of change is important. And whatever you do, do NOT wheel war about this.--Jimbo Wales 07:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)"

Sorry, Jimbo has since indicated that the 'softly-softly' approach is not working - and that the current situation is 'unacceptable'. Your information is out of date. --Doc ^ask? 23:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)----

You reverted my change to the template. When I made my change I linked to Jimbo's comment. You did not. Why not? --Henrygb 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aha, so there's where the divisive was coming from

This template needs to be renamed; CSD T1 doesn't have the word "divisive" in it, and being "divisive" is very different from being "polemic" or "inflammatory". I was wondering where that notion came from. --AySz88^-^ 05:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved it to Template:db-inflammatory. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

CSD T1 had "divisive" in it, which was switched out for polemic somewhere along the way. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revote?

It just occurred to me, this "is a template that is polemical or inflammatory (CSD T1)"! I would flag it for speedy-deletion, but I'm pretty sure that would result in a feedback loop, so instead, I ask for people's thoughts. --M@rēino 21:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. I agree. I also tested it on preview and it didn't crash the Wikipedia servers. Apparently you can put a template on its own page. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if somebody already did [2]. It was reverted. --Henrygb 10:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)