Template talk:WikipediaVandalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argh! I saved it prematurely! I'm still working on this, thanx 68.39.174.238 03:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Any good?

OK, does this thing actually do any good? Unfortunately I can quite imagine that a few trolls would be delighted to get one of these slapped onto their user accounts. Maybe something less low key would be more appropriate? chowells 00:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not supposed to go on peoples pages, it's just a navigation template so vandalism-related pages can be easily linked. 68.39.174.238 20:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Layout questions

For a discussion about the edit link see the Template:Tnavbar (edit talk links history) talk page. For issues like align=right (floating), colour scheme, width, and line breaks see the Category:Maintenance navigation (edit talk links history) talk page, it's more or less the same problem for various "sidebar" templates. -- Omniplex 06:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Efforts to remove the Counter-Vandalism Unit from this template

There's no need to repeatedly remove the Counter-Vandalism Unit from this template. Listing of the CVU on this template does not confer "official recognition" or assert that the pages listed are "official process[es]", any more than the listing of Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism gives it such a status. Rather, the listing is merely intended as a convenience to allow users to locate Wikipedia's only active anti-vandalism wikiproject. John254 04:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Cleaning up vandalism is an uncontroversial set of tools. The CVU is a highly controversial organization that, while it survived an MfD, also clearly showed in that Mfd that it did not have widespread support. To include it as part of a template that includes official processes and policies does confer it with a legitimacy that it does not have conensus for. Consensus to exist is not consensus to appear on a given page. Phil Sandifer 14:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, consensus for the Counter-Vandalism Unit to exist implies consensus for it to be allowed sufficient publicity for its continued existence. Removing the Counter-Vandalism Unit from this template will have the effect of eliminating almost all links to the CVU from any other page, thereby concealing its existence from almost all users who presently do not participate in it, and effectively destroying the CVU by attrition, as it would have no new members. Essentially all wikiprojects have links from project or article talk pages to inform new users of their existence; eliminating nearly all the links to the CVU will produce the same result as its deletion. Consequently, it is appropriate to place an MFD-like banner on the CVU to inform its members that it is being considered for effective deletion by attrition. John254 15:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Disinclination to delete does not constitute approval for all modes of publicity. I have no objection to a link to the CVU from Cleaning up Vandalism, or fromt he text or description of any page, because that allows for clarifications like "The CVU is an unofficial project committed to cleaning up vandalism." I object to putting it into a template because that does not facillitate the sort of clarification that the page requires. As for your MfD-like banner, the precedent this would set for our deletion procedures would be terribly destructive. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's sufficient to state that the Counter-Vandalism Unit "is an Wikiproject committed to cleaning up vandalism." This should clarify that the CVU is no more "official" than any other WikiProject, such as Esperanza, without the specific disendorsement of being labeled an "unofficial project", which implies a lower status than other WikiProjects. Interestingly, Esperanza also recently survived a MFD nomination (though some subpages were subsequently deleted). This trend of nominating popular, longstanding Wikiprojects for deletion is creating an enormous amount of unnecessary conflict, and really needs to be stopped. John254 18:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If the CVU is a WikiProject, it should be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Counter Vandalism Unit. Phil Sandifer 18:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all WikiProjects are prepended with the term "WikiProject" -- Esperanza isn't, for instance. Also, the link to the Counter-Vandalism Unit remained on this template without objection since it was added by Cool Cat in October 2005 until it was removed as a result of Drini's decision to speedily delete the CVU against consensus, based on the arguments for deletion offered by Bobby Boulders. Indeed, as seen in this version of the template, Phil Sandifer himself did not remove the Counter-Vandalism Unit when he edited Template:WikipediaVandalism. Perhaps we should restore this portion of the template to the revision as of 19:06, 28 October 2006, which Centrx created to remedy his concerns that the CVU could be seen as "somehow official". Alternatively, we could link the CVU as the Counter-Vandalism WikiProject. John254 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner, you just complain, complain, complain. Since the formation you complained against CVU. You speedy deleted CVU logos... You campaigned against CVU all this time... You used every opportunity to remove it from existence. Get a new hobby, really. --Cat out 20:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to respond, since you haven't actually responded to anything I've said. Phil Sandifer 03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion civil. We're all here to work on our dear Wiki. In response to the above, I don't think the CVU nor Esperanza technically count as WikiProjects; I think they're Wikipedian organizations. I might be wrong on that, though. Still, I don't think that there's any confusion that the organizations in that category need to be official in any way.

As for this template, I could see where one might be confused for a moment and think that the CVU is official, considering that most of the links on it are official. Still, the section that it's in (resources) isn't really chalk-full of official pages. It seems to be more of just things to help out against vandalism, which the CVU certainly is. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 07:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)