Template talk:Spa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protected Template:Spa has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on November 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn..
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 15 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW.


Contents

[edit] How this template came about...

Those templates that you put into the Mini Mammoth AFD for users who had not made other contributions - what is the code? ViridaeTalk 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't one! Though I probably should create one. I'll get back to you when I do. Need to think about the wording and linking first to be as impartial as possible. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of Template:spa?

— Viridae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you think it's good enough, do you think I should add a note about it to the afdnewbies template? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it! That will be really useful. ViridaeTalk 22:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. {{spa}} has really taken off. From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meathead (2nd nomination):

  • Delete is still my vote from last time, for the reasons above. But I give it 3 more hours before the meatpuppets attack again. Get ready with your {{spa}} and {{unsigned}} tags. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging me to turn it into a template. I now have a inane claim to WikiFame. I'm the inventor of the increasingly popular {{spa}} tag! = P Cheers,  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I had noticed the increasing use. Its awesome! ViridaeTalk 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XfD discussions and concerns of possible misuse

In the recent XfD discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Single purpose account and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 14#Template:Spa, several editors expressed concerns that this template has the potential for misuse. Also, attaching this template to the signature of a user is viewed by some as potentially uncivil. As always, sound judgment is required when using this template and others such as {{sock}}. If at all in doubt, it is probably best not to use, lest we run afoul of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks, Satori Son 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is a better option than {{sock}}, which is what used to be used quite often. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
But the question remains: since we don't really vote here, and it's based solely on arguments, what was wrong with just saying "this user only has 12 edits," or something similar? I definitely still think the use of this tag is unnecessarily hostile - it shouts out "this user is probably only here for one thing," regardless of any evidence to really suggest it. I know a user who only adds speedy and prod tags to articles. That's all he does. If he offers an opinion at AfD, can I tag him as an spa? After all, I can point out that nearly all of his thousands of edits suggest he's here for a single purpose. The answer is "of course, we'd never do that." And yet... --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What if we changed the language to "...has made few or no other edits outside this discussion" instead of "topic"? The template is not designed for those editors who contribute primarily to a single topic, right? -- Satori Son 06:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substitution

I don't see any need to substitute this template, and people have been using this template without substitution, so I'm going to remove that instruction for now; please go ahead and revert if there's some reason that I missed. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 07:31Z

[edit] Second and third parameters

Two points:

  • The usage notes do not mention the second and third parameters.
  • Shouldn't the third parameter be outside the brackets around "UTC"?

Philip J. Rayment 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't like this template

...Although I understand that it can be useful currently, since AFD discussions and the like are often discussed and voted on. Usage of this template, however, would encourage that behavior, in my mind. If I recall correctly, AFDs and such are supposed to be closed on the merits of the discussion. Although single-purpose accounts often use "I like this article" as a reason for keeping something that should be deleted, they also have the amazing ability to reason well sometimes. Oh my gosh!

This template, in usual practice, is only added by people to SPA comments that take a different position than them. This encourages closing administrators to completely overlook or undermine the actual merits of the argument, cultivating the view that AFDs are a vote.

I could also see hypothetically that closing admins might be swayed by the addition of single-purpose accounts to a discussion. "OMG, five single-purpose accounts are voting keep?! This discussion must be closed as delete, then! I don't want people to think that I closed this discussion by vote-counting!" Yeah. Not saying it happens, but it's definitely a possibility.

The V in VFD was changed for a reason. I feel that this template and the attitude which it is used with completely destroy that reason. Voretus 15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed in some detail at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 14#Template:Spa. I think the consensus was generally that the benefits of this template outweigh the disadvantages. Personally, I think you should give the closing admins a little more credit. The vast majority are not going to completely disregard a logical, articulate, policy-based opinion simply because it has an SPA tag slapped on it. This tag is primarily meant to help identify and compensate for sockpuppet votestacking. -- Satori Son 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested edit

This template is protected, and should be tagged with {{protected template}}, or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. -- Satori Son 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed language change

I attempted to start a discussion after the last TfD debate to make the language more specific (and thus less likely to be misused), but got no traction. Since it has been nominated for deletion again (which I oppose), I would like to suggest changing the language to the following:

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this XfD discussion or its subject.

This should help prevent the template from being improperly used on "talk" and "user" pages, which is not its purpose. -- Satori Son 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see this template being useful in e.g. policy discussions, community noteboard discussions, etc. Accordingly, I'd support changing the text to "... few or no other edits outside this discussion or its subject." Sandstein 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Sandstein; it should be 'this discussion', piped nowhere. --ais523 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I would be hesitant to use this template in a general debate were the number of !votes doesn't really matter, I don't object to your language. The current "topic" is simply too broad, so any refinement will be an improvement. -- Satori Son 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This has been necessary outside of AFD. But "this discussion" with no pipe would be fine. — coelacan — 12:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this proposed change. This template is appropriate for any policy or community discussion including, but not limited to xFD, RFA or community bans. I'm going to be bold and remove the EP tag... at lease until consensus is reached. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you disagree with simply changing "topic" to "discussion"? That seems to be the emerging consensus. -- Satori Son 14:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, to me. Just to be explicit, are people favoring the "or its subject" bit, after, or no? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I would be ok with it, but I prefer "topic"... Just because I wouldn't mark someone as a SPA if they have 50 edits in 10 different and unrelated articles but I would if the person had 50 edits to the article the AFD is about. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be too wordy if we said "outside this XfD, RfA, RfC or straw poll discussion"? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say this is rather wordy, and if we list discussions, we're bound to miss some type of discussion that this template can be usefully applied to. "Topic" is also OK with me. Sandstein 05:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, since "topic" is what it says now, I guess we're back to square one. Perhaps there is not consensus for any change at this time. Thanks for considering. -- Satori Son 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me there is consensus for some kind of change... just not about which one. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to pull the rug out from under you. Obviously, I would still support a change in language that would make this template less likely to be inappropriately applied, but I'm not sure what to suggest at this point. -- Satori Son 15:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It's okay. Sorry for the long response time, I have been somewhat distracted with other things. Well, I have another idea about this. We could create multiple Spa templates, each one for a different type of discussion - XfD, RfA, straw poll, etc. This would hopefully include all situations where Spa was relevant, without vagueness which allows too much room for misuse. The trouble would be what to do with this version. We could subst all current uses, but getting a bot to do that should probably only be done if we can build a strong consensus for this idea. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When should this template be used, and when should it not be used?

In the TfD, it seems to me that there is a general consensus that this template is useful in some situations, but can be misused. (I would not agree, but I seem to be a one-editor minority.) So, would it be possible to include documentation on the template page about when this should be used, when it shouldn't, and what to do if a newbie takes offence to it? Could we also link to alternatives like {{Afd-welcome}} and {{uw-notvote}}? Thank you, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The other templates are important, and I will explain below why. However, if an editor's first post is in an XFD discussion, in which they feel strongly about a topic, their comment should not count as part of consensus of the Wikipedia community. However, they can be encouraged to become part of the Wikipedia community with those templates. People should read WP:SPA before using this template, so a link in the documentation should be helpful. GracenotesT § 01:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your response!  : ) I completely agree that the opinion of someone very new to Wikipedia should not count for much, if anything, in determining consensus. However, I also believe it is insensitive to tell them this, or at least focus on it. A link to WP:SPA would be good. Perhaps we could even go so far as to subst it into the noinclude portion of the template? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get documentation to subpage

{{editprotected}}

Could we move the documentation to a subpage, Template:Spa/doc? GracenotesT § 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So we can edit it? I would support that.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Shhhhhhhhh... :) I would just not prefer to have to always wait for an admin to drop by with his/her flashy edit-protected-page tools for us to implement consensus. GracenotesT § 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Done, can't see any harm in doing so. Feel free to make sure I did it right (I think I did, but you never know...) and if I did stuff up somewhere with the noincludes/includeonlys, tell me on my user talk so I can fix it. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 21:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/a/Template_talk%7ESpa_01ad.html"