Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 28

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 keep, per WP:SNOW. I did not consider the possibilities of people using the comment to focus on certain areas of Wikipedia as opposed to just there being numbers that don't affect people in any way, but it's clear now that they do affect people, so I'll withdraw this and close as speedy keep. Cowman109^Talk 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wdefcon

Template:Wdefcon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This should really be an MFD and not a TFD, but so it doesn't break transclusion I'll drop this here. Times have clearly changed sine the past TFDs of the Defcon, and I can safely say that it serves no purpose other than to glorify the vandals who up the defcon level. There is no hard and fast rule as to what allows the defcon to be at a certain level and the whole thing doesn't help protect the encyclopedia in any way. Therefore, I am proposing this for deletion. This will inevitably end up on a subpage as I'm sure the discussion will outgrow this allocated space, but there is simply no use for this template. Cowman109^Talk 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy to User:Wdefcon. Misza13 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  There is an account already at that username. Perhaps the defcon could be added to a subpage of whoever the first contributor was. In this case, that is User:Luigi30 if I'm not mistaken. Cowman109^Talk 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  I know there is. I have created it myself a while ago anticipating this next TfD. :) Since issues raised before included concerns that template userfied to someone's subpage would lose it's feel of openness, I have created an account for this non-user, "whose" main userpage is a perfect alternative to Template: space. Misza13 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep FireSpike Editor Review! 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Useful for knowing how bad vandalism's gettign at a particular time. We COULD userfy it but I think it's fine as is. --Wizardman 22:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: so long as it is useful, which it is, it should not be deleted. Prodego ^talk 22:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's helpful to those of us who don't spend much time in the IRC counter-vandalism channels et al. If one jokester or small group of miscreants is responsible for upping the level number, then someone's probably misusing the template. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep legitimate template. Addhoc 22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It has already been said many times that userfying the template will discourage its use because people are not as willing to edit things in user space that are not theirs. This template is legit and useful. --Zsinj^Talk 22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't break WP:DENY at all, and it doesn't hurt the project, so... -- Chris is me 22:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --AAA! ^(AAAA)

22:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm strongly tempted to speedy keep this, as all the arguments here and here still apply, and the result won't change. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This template has some usefulness such as detecting the levels of vandalism. This is an important template becuse it can give RC patrollers a notice that vandalism are either high or low.--PrestonH 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - informative, and its military style gets vandal-fighters more pumped up than the vandals! --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. Cbrown1023 23:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep President George W. Bushcarrot 23:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this is not a vote, and no one has given an explanation for how exactly this is useful. At a glance, I cannot find an argument that supports the usefulness of this template in the older TFDs, so could someone please explain? Cowman109^Talk 23:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this isn't a vote, however, at this juncture, it would require 22 straight delete 'non-votes' to gain a two-thirds majority. Not that all 'non-votes' are closed according to this, of course. Consequently, I would suggest this nomination should be closed or withdrawn. Finally, regarding your question, the DefCon is used in a similar manner to the category tracker at WP:BACKLOG... Addhoc 23:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Wdefcon provides a snapshot of overall vandal activity on the site that isn't immediately apparent to all patrollers. As most people view recent changes on a slowed down, page-by-page basis (rather than "as it happens"), this template gives a good picture of what people are missing. They can accordingly learn quickly what pages to watch (e.g. Special:Log/newusers, Special:Newpages, or pages that are currently undergoing extensive vandalism, such as with the Colbert debacle) when attention needs to be concentrated in specific places. Watching Wdefcon also paints a very helpful picture of what times throughout the day are the most ripe for vandalism. Aren't these good enough rationales for the template? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I agree with the above comments, and I think that Wdefcon is an important vandal-alert tool Tyson Moore es 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, this is the best tool for me when determining when to fight vandalism. It works since anyone can edit it and display their ideas.__Seadog ^♪ 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not useful? I use it. I don't usually do vandalism patrol (I'm too slow), but I keep an eye on the level, and when it gets up to level 3 I might wade in, and when if gets up to the next level I often drop what I'm doing and go over to patrol. I'm certain I'm not the only one. Herostratus 01:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Alerts me about current vandalism--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I'm not on IRC. I rely on this to see if I should fire up VP on recent changes and help with the workload. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Supercalifregilisticexplialidocious keep. ~~•Sean•gorter• ^{Get a signature!} 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Honestly, agreeing with User:Kathryn NicDhàna, even I find this useful, as it indicates what type of vandalism activity to expect when I start up VP.-- danntm ^T _C 04:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep very useful for communicating vandalism levels to the wider community. Viridae^Talk 06:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I refer to it all the time when reverting vandalism, and it helps notify me when more eyes are needed for counter-vandalism work. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While I recognize that the template can be misleading at times, it gives a helpful insight into the level and type of vandalism, thus helping vandal fighters to counter it. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 07:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep An important guide for vandal fighters. Jam01 08:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW speedy keep per above. MER-C 10:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Oh dear, we seem to have a lot of identical keep arguments (not all of them, but many of them). I'd like to point out that as TfD is not a ballot, duplicate arguments shouldn't make a difference to consensus; I'd also like to point out that despite the appearance of the TfD there are substantive keep arguments being made. I believe that the purpose of the template (to call in extra vandalfighters at times of high vandalism) makes sense; it can also be used to tell vandalfighters where to look in particular vandalism situations. Of course it can be misused; but that argument applies to pretty much everything on Wikipedia (including the article namespace). --ais523 10:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, very useful template for vandal fighters like myself. It is a very good way of tracking vandals, though sometimes it can be misleading due to lack of update of the template. Terence Ong 12:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - As an fairly prolific vandal fighter, I use this to judge if I should pull myself away from other WP tasks. One of the first things I check when I get on to see where I should start. Looks like WP:SNOW to me! Lets keep it - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - extremely useful for coordinating counter-vandalism efforts. I doubt the WP:DENY reason for deletion, as it is unlikely that any one vandal (short of a monumental vandalbot attack; Squiddy + Willy X 10) will last long enough to get the Defcon raised single-handedly. There are guidelines for what each level means here; it simply relies on people taking the initiative and using their best judgement instead of a ruthlessly rigid set of rules. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep We have gone through this many a time. Denying unnecessary recognition does not mean eliminating all mention of them, like WP:LTA, barnstars, and the WP:CVU. WP:DENY is not a policy anyway. The defcon has always been helpful, and that will never change.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 15:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No point in deleting what is a very useful template on the basis of something that isn't even policy. This template does help communicate the status of the vandalism level to RC patrollers. Hut 8.5 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep In agreement with others that it provides an excellent snapshot and informs me about where to put my efforts, anti-vandalism or more straightforward editing. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Per all arguments above. It is very useful for monitoring vandalism levels and doesn't really incite vandalism. WP:DENY is being used too much as an argument for deletion when it is not policy [and is not likely ever to become policy]. ><RichardΩ612 ^UW 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.