Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Uw-warn

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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Uw-warn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am nominating this template for deletion because the notice may constitute bad-faith when placed on other users' talk page. I have tried this a few times after users reverted vandalism; however, the result was considered as a bad-faith edit. ^t_z 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment in my understanding, bad faith has to do with intentions, while this template only addresses actions, and specifically the benefits of communicating with other users when reverting their edits. How is that bad faith? Dar-Ape 00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While I do get where you are coming from, this template helps by educating people about the warning templates they can use. Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think the template can be perceived as slightly intrusive by some readers, and there's not much of a way around that. In cases like this, I would prefer to write the user a note "by hand", but the template is at least as good. YechielMan 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is the wrong process, but keep. It's patronizing when used on established editors who already know this, but so are all warning templates. -Amarkov moo! 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: Moved from MFD to TFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional keep - On condition that the official-looking graphic is removed from the template, and that it be worded to make it clear that the intention is to bring the user's attention to the existence of user warning templates, and to make it clear that use of them is entirely optional and that that may find them useful. Also, the template should should perhaps not include a "thank you" as this could suggest communication from a position of superiority. Agreement with their actions, rather than gratitute would put the message bearer on a more level footing, and would help to message to be accepted as that from an equal. It ought also be renamed from "uw-something" as use of this template is not in itself a warning, nor a precursor to one. --Rebroad 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've made these changes now. Hope this is ok - it's common practice for a template to be changed while an AFD is being discussed, especially if it may help to change concensus to "Keep". --Rebroad 10:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe that consensus was already keep... no matter, though. The uw- prefix is a standard part of user talk page messages indicating general information about process and policy; prior to it, template names were a bit less guessable (aka intuitive)... but that's a different matter. You could check out WP:UW/FAQ for more details. Gracenotes^T § 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep → The template is useful, per Amarkov. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: userful and indicator template must be kept. Jer10 95 Talk 22:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for logic explored above; however, I would suggest keeping the image. No need to pretend that this isn't a pre-written template. If you don't want that pre-written template feel, write a custom message! Gracenotes^T § 01:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No pretense suggested. It's a pre-written template, image or no image. With image, I think it's a little pretentious and officious. Without image, it's more personal. This is my opinion. --Rebroad 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hm. I think that the issue in question is whether to have images on user talk notices at all (not warnings, merely notices; information). How about this: whether your interpretation of the dichotomy is sensible (to the point of actionable) or not, I don't see the value of having a more personal template. All talk page posts that I have seen indicate, to me, that if editors become frustrated or turned off an impersonal template, it is not because those templates are impersonal. Gracenotes^T § 19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Amarkov. Acalamari 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, discourages WP:BOLD. If you don't like it when a certain edit isn't made, stop telling other people to do it and do it yourself. Tuxide 03:13, 19 April 2007 (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.