Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was snowball keep. There's an overwhelming consensus here that deletion isn't the best way to deal with any problems the essay might have; there are only two comments marked 'delete' remaining, one of which mentions renaming as an alternative (which is an editorial decision), and there are several rebuttals here to the other comment ('per nom'). It seems very unlikely that leaving this nomination open would lead to any other result; if there are substantive arguments for deletion that have not been brought up, or someone disagrees with this close and also wants the article to be deleted, please see deletion review. ais523 16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

There are various problems with this essay:

1. Attempts to exempt "regulars" from notification by templates which have been designed to be neutral and easy to use
2. Doesn't define "regular" or suggest how to go about determining who is a regular
3. Implies that the rules are different for some editors, without a clear dividing line or reasoning
4. Implies "regular" editors are exempt from civility and no personal attacks policies if they become "annoyed" at being templated
5. Impedes notification of users of policy violation by adding the extra step of figuring out whether they are a "regular" without giving a guideline for determining such. IPSOS (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Nomination withdrawn. I expect that other opinion essays, such as the opposing Wikipedia:Template the regulars, will be given equal standing in accordance with this precedent. IPSOS (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. John Carter 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - common sense essay. Agree with Bish's comments here that posting standard messages on the talk pages of experienced editors isn't good practice.--Addhoc 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Essays are supposed to represent opinions, and MfD is not the place to challenge such opinions unless they are against some sort of policy, such as WP:NOT(which I don't see as applying). As long as an essay is designed with the intent to improve Wikipedia it should be allowed, no matter how misguided the opinions are. I think it is a foolish idea to create a class that should not be templated, but that is just my opinion. Others may think differently, and I cannot pretend that only I know best when it comes to improving the encyclopedia. Just keep it out of policy until it enjoys consensus(which it is far from now). Until(1 == 2) 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Despite my previous opinion (Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Template the regulars), I still think that in essence this essay is valid, and should be kept. I disagree with what it says, but that isn't a valid reason to delete (per Until). Giggy _U^CP 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Unit(1 == 2). --ElKevbo 23:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. IPSOS' nomination is extraordinary: only one out of the five reasons given is even true, if read very mellowly, and without being particularly damning; the others are silly strawmen. The one that's true is 2 and 5. Yes, I can count to two, even Bishzilla can, but 2 and 5 are the same. Let's take a look at the other three:

• 1. The templates "have been designed to be neutral and easy to use." What...? Seriously? The most commonly used templates for the purpose of templating the regulars are the low-level warning templates which contain phrases like "Welcome to Wikipedia" and "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia". You should know, those are the templates you recently slapped three times on DreamGuy's talkpage, as mentioned by Addhoc above.[1] [2] [3] And they're the kind you were asked by me here to stop using for trolling and provocation. Occasionally a very very new user will template a regular in all good faith, which is a good opportunity for gently explaining a few facts of Wiki culture to them. But in the more usual case where somebody such as yourself does it — a user with some experience and presumably understanding of proper demeanor in content disputes — templating the regulars is about trolling, not about "notifying users of policy violations". Is it in order to go on doing that without being called on it by admins, and eventually blocked for harassment, that you want this good and policy-compliant essay deleted ? I ask because the reasons you give are such jokes. It won't help, you know. People are aware of the principle, whether it's enshrined in an essay or not.

• 3. "Implies that the rules are different for some editors"... do me a favor, it implies that 'welcoming' somebody who's been editing for two years is different from welcoming a newbie — how much "reasoning" does that difference require?

• 4. It implies that... what? I can't even address 4, it doesn't make any kind of sense. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

• Comment - for some of the history behind this, please see Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars. There was a discussion in progress there on whether to merge Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars and the later counter-point essay Wikipedia:Template the regulars. The latter was deleted at Giggy's request during that discussion, and during related discussions at his RfA. My opinion is that this essay needs more input to work towards a wording that says that generalization of this essay is unhelpful. It is clear at least that some editors are misinterpreting it. The whole issue touches on key points about how Wikipedians of different "ages" (in Wikipedia terms) interact, points that need to be clarified. Carcharoth 23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Bishonen. Slapping a "Welcome to Wikipedia" or similar message on the page of an experienced editor is rude and patronising, and the essay is quite a useful thing to point editors to when they've done it without thinking it through. ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I get annoyed when I get templated. I very rarely use templates anyway, why not spend that extra ten seconds writing a nice personalised note that actually makes more sense? This essay accurately gets this point across, without actually forcing people to do it. Good philosophy, and the essay is an asset. --Deskana (banana) 00:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Bishonen and Until(1 == 2). —« ANIMUM » 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Realistically, this essay doesn't have the hypothetical implications the nominator claims. Gracenotes^T § 01:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and fix if needed. Perhaps, having seen and participated in some of the unfortunate incidents which led to this essay's creation, I have a different perspective than IPSOS, which would account for the divergence of opinion. That said, this page isn't policy (and is clearly labelled to that effect), and it seems to me that the page could be edited to resolve many of the perceive problems mentioned in the nomination. There is a point to be made, here, and I think it's an important concern to address with an essay. We can edit the essay and debate it up and down the street, but I don't see that we need to delete the essay instead of working through these disagreements. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The essay has flaws, but it makes a thought provoking point. If everyone read it, the encylopedia would be a better place.--Kubigula (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I strongly diagree with the opnions expressed in this essay, or at least the way some editors have interpred (or mis-interpreted) them, but I rather doubt that an MfD is the proper way to express that disagreemetn. i should add that I have just undeleted Wikipedia:Template the regulars, as a page edited by multiple editors, and therefore not deletable through an "author request". DES ^(talk) 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read, and largely agree with, your comments at WT:UTM. I think we all agree that there are some templates that should never be used on the "regulars" (e.g. {{uw-v1}}, and some templates that are perfectly appropriate for regulars (e.g. {{AFDWarning}}. There's a good point in this essay, even if the title and phrasing need work.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a flag on warnings like "regular=yes" that removes any language designed for new users and has a more "you should know better" tone to it, but that is just a dream. Until(1 == 2) 04:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Acvcording to discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace, for most of the series tempaltes, this is the difference between level 1 and level 2 templates, and regulars can simply be started at level 2. For some templates, there are already explicit "newcommer" version: consider {{AFDWarning}} and {{AFDWarningNew}}. DES ^(talk) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just added a section to Wikipedia:Template the regulars, which i think and hope improves that essay and makes it a bit less confrontational. DES ^(talk) 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per the recent trouncing I took on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Policy shopping. Overwhelming consensus seems to be that these essays hold no weight, so who cares? - Crockspot 04:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll take a stab at addressing the concerns of the nominator, but it's an essay with some logic behind it, and that's good enough for me. Shalom ^Hello 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - or rename it to "Only use templates appropriately", because the current title and content imply no template would ever be appropriate for use on the talk page of a regular. This in turn implies that regulars are "more equal" than other editors -- which is prima facie false. What's more, this expression of that false view damages our effort to be inclusive of all contributors. Saying that all shorter: the mere presence of this essay harms Wikipedia. (sdsds - talk) 06:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Until(1 == 2) really sums it up for me. No policy vio, and this is an essay we are talking about; a personal opinion that can be discarded. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bishonen and ElinorD, to name just two. As an advocate of equality among all users, realistically speaking, there's no danger whatsoever in the essay creating a status distinction between the community. By following the thoughts outlined there, there's nothing to lose, yet much unnecessary stress and bitterness to be avoided. Phaedriel - 08:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above, Modernist 13:05, 31 July 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.